Peoples Directorate Bristol Schools Forum
DRAFT Agenda Wednesday 27th September 2017 at 5.45pm , City Hall, First Floor Writing Room NB – please note meeting starts at 6.15 but refreshments available from 5.45pm
Start Item Action Owner Paper 1 6.15 Welcome & Briefing A Chair
2 6.20 Forum standing business . Apologies for Absence A Clerk Verbal . Confirmation meeting is quorate . Appointment of new members . Notification of Vacancies . Declarations of Interest
3 6.25 Minutes of meeting held on 11th July 2017 A Chair Attached Corrections and approval • Matters arising not covered on agenda o Cllr attendance at Forum (Item 5 CR) o Rates for PRUs (Item 7 PJ) o High Needs funding letter to Government (Item 8 CR) o Behaviour Improvement Team (Item 8 PJ) o Policies on Website (Item 10 BF) 4 6.35 Correspondence I Chair
5 6.40 DSG Overview: Monitoring 2017/18 and Provisional I DET Attached Strategy 2018/19 /WW
6 7.10 Schools PFI Affordability Gap De DET / Attached RL 7 7.25 High Needs Update I AJ To Follow
8 7.55 Report on Growth Fund Expenditure I WW Attached
9 8.10 TwS Annual Report I CG / Attached AM 10 8.30 Any Other Business
(*) A = Admin, I = Information, De = Decision required, C = Consultation, Di = Discussion
Clerk: Billy Forsythe email: [email protected] Tel: 011792 23947 Parkview Campus
Chair: Carew Reynell (contact via clerk)
Peoples Directorate
FUTURE MEETINGS – All at City Hall – First Floor Writing Room
Date Items 22nd November 2017 De-Delegation Decision High Needs Update NB Wednesday Budget Monitoring
16th January 2018 High Needs Update Budget Monitoring
13th March 2018 High Needs Update Budget Monitoring
22nd May 2018 High Needs Update Budget Monitoring
10th July 2018 High Needs Update Budget Monitoring
Bristol Schools Forum 27rd September 2017 Agenda Item 3
Bristol Schools’ Forum Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 11th July 2017 at 18.15 hrs at City Hall Present: Jamie Barry Headteacher, Parson Street Primary Graham Diles Deputy Headteacher, St Mary Redcliffe & Temple Patricia Dodds Governor, Fishponds Academy Peter Evans Headteacher, Knowle DGE Aileen Morrison Headteacher, St Matthias Park Cllr Ruth Pickersgill Governor, Rosemary Nursery Carew Reynell (Chair) Governor, Henbury Secondary Cedric Sanguignol Governor Representative, Bishop Road Primary Paul Smith Diocese of Bristol Board of Education Christine Townsend Governor, Whitehall Primary David Yorath Governor, Cotham School Michelle Wills Representative, Teaching Professionals Jane Carter
In attendance: Billy Forsythe Clerk to Schools Forum Chrysta Garnett Head of School Partnerships Paul Jacobs Service Director, Education & Skills Annette Jones Head of Specialist Education & Access Denise Murray Service Director, Finance David Tully Interim Finance Business Partner Wendy Welsh Finance Manager Travis Young Senior Accountant
Observers: Chris Pring, Clare Pring, Anne Sheridan
Item Action 1. Welcome and introductions The Chair opened the meeting at 18:15
2. Forum standing business Apologies Received from Claire Banks, Ebrima Bojang, Tim Browse, Alan Gould, Mary-Jane Hinchliffe, Tracy Jones, Dan Reed, Anne Rutherford.
Clerk confirmed meeting was not quorate at start of meeting.
New member – Patricia Dodds welcomed as new Governor representative.
Vacancies: Currently six vacancies to be filled -one Secondary Academy Head, three 1 Bristol Schools Forum 27rd September 2017 Agenda Item 3 Primary Heads, one Secondary Academy Governor and a vacancy for the Clifton Diocese.
Mary-Jane Hinchliffe has retired and Claire Banks has moved outside Bristol – both were thanked for their contributions to the Forum.
No declarations of interest were expressed.
3. Minutes of the meeting held on 28th March Discussion of the minutes was postponed as meeting not yet quorate
4. Correspondence CR reported that he had been contacted by Richmond Schools Forum to join a national School Forum Association and he had replied asking to be kept informed of developments.
5. Strategic Overview PJ gave an overview covering:
• Education Policy – not clear what Government will do. It is likely they will keep the dual system of Regional School Commissioners (RSC) and LAs but the move towards selective schools is probably stopped. There is a commitment to Fairer Funding and a focus on mental health of young people. A drive for an Industrial Strategy will have implications for Secondary schools and technical qualifications.
• Education Funding – PJ outlined that with the RSC Bristol is part of a group of neighbouring LAs looking at common issues and new funding routes will come through this group. There is a risk that Bristol will not attract new funding as our outcomes are above SW average so not a priority area.
• On Fairer Funding the LA was waiting on outcome of consultation and clarity on manifesto commitment.
• PJ stressed the importance of partnerships and guarding against fragmentation. Excellence in Schools group is a key group to promote Bristol children. PJ thanked the Forum for its work and the ethical debates held.
PJ explained that there was a subscription forum for primary heads (Primary Heads Association Bristol) and an open form for secondary heads (Bristol Association for Secondary Heads).He confirmed that the representatives on the Learning City group had been invited by the Mayor.
AM asked if only teaching schools could apply for strategic funding. PJ confirmed that collaborative bids were favoured so MATS could bid but would have to name the group of schools involved.
PJ advised that his replacement should be in post and at the September meeting. DY thanked PJ for the improvements he had made in the collaboration between the Forum & the LA. 2 Bristol Schools Forum 27rd September 2017 Agenda Item 3
JB expressed a concern that the Cabinet member had not been attending the Forum meeting and asked if this could be raised. CR to write to the Cllr. CR
6. DSG Overall Position DT presented the report.
The current deficit was £1.6m and the forecast overspend was £4.4m. The position is serious and the LA has to identify measures to get the DSG back into balance. The solution will not be more money but reducing commitments.
JB questioned the principles as he thought some were vague and contradictory. The key issue is to think about the needs of the children and not make short sighted decisions based on finances. PJ agreed there were no easy answers but action needed to be taken.
RP asked about the implications of the PFI funding. DM replied that DM & DT are working with Legal, Procurement & Finance to identify the liability and what actions can be taken. A full report will come back to Forum in Sept. AGENDA
AM proposed amendments to the principles to include: • Taking particular account of the needs of the most vulnerable • Wherever reasonably possible modelling the impact of budget cuts • Giving consideration to longer term needs.
DM advised that the principles would be refreshed and emailed out before the September DT/BF meeting.
Forum agreed to note the overall financial principles and would agree the principles with the proposed amendments.
7. Maintained School Balances 2016/17 WW reported that the licensed deficit process was being revised and all schools have been written to asking them to confirm their plan to move any deficit budget back to a sustainable budget..
RP advised that a significant number of Nurseries are in a deficit position because of the government’s policy on funding. This is a major problem and will become worse.
JB added that the decision to cut funding for Nursery split sites was a short sighted decision by LA that has had a major impact. PJ advised that this was not an LA decision - the DfE does not allow this in the EY funding formula.
RP asked if any action has been taken re PRUS & Nurseries having to pay business rates. PJ advised that Cllr H has raised this and he will check. PJ
Forum noted the report.
3 Bristol Schools Forum 27rd September 2017 Agenda Item 3
8. High Needs Update PJ introduced the report.
There are three key pressures: • Post 16 Placements • Top Up – mainstream and special • Placements.
Reductions have been made in some areas of spend and the number of permanent exclusions has been reduced but spend on placements has increased and overall the spend has increased.
Appendix A in the report has a draft action plan to reduce expenditure and section 2.4 outlines the LA recommendations.
AJ reported that the Inclusion group will be setting up a working group to look at the proposals and identify any unintended consequences.
AM added that the budget needs of Top Up have to be balanced against the needs of the young people. Additional cuts will impact.
It was noted that the people who sit on the panels are focussed on the needs of the young people but are not always aware of the costs of the placements – especially out of county placements.
PJ added that Special free schools can set their own top up rates and the LA has made representation to the EFA on this.
PJ reported that all LAs have similar challenges. The Government are saying they did increase funding on the basis of pupil numbers but the actual spend on Post 16 is far above the funding. Cllr H has written to the Secretary of State and the Mayor is liaising with core city leads to agree a co-ordinated approach to funding. The LA lost £1m from Post 16 funding. CR to draft a letter to the Government on behalf of the Forum CR expressing concern at the level of funding.
JB added that cutting funding two weeks before the end of term did not give schools much time to re-act.
The decision to cut the Behaviour Improvement Team was noted and it was not clear if their work had been picked up the Education Psychology Service. PJ
PE asked if the Forum were being asked for a decision or if they were being consulted. PJ advised that this was a decision for the LA in consultation with the Forum.
JB expressed concern that the Forum were being asked to endorse recommendations and cuts with no modelling of impact.
Forum agreed to note the report and the recommendations but not to endorse them.
4 Bristol Schools Forum 27rd September 2017 Agenda Item 3
9. Impact of Funding Formula PJ advised that this had been highlighted in the strategic overview.
MW asked if the Forum would not need to exist if fairer Funding was introduced. PJ advised this could be the outcome but the Government had not confirmed this.
10 Minutes of the meeting held on 28th March Meeting now quorate.
JB advised that final paragraph of item 5 was not accurate. Minute should read:
“JB asked if the LA was funding the growth of schools within Bristol that were controlling their admissions to allow places to children outside Bristol. PJ confirmed that those schools funded through the growth fund will only receive growth fund money for pupils within Bristol.”
Minutes of the meeting were then accepted as accurate.
Matters Arising
It was agreed that a report on growth fund allocation will be on September agenda. AGENDA
Item 6 – growth fund examples had been sent
Item 7 – WW confirmed amendment to Scheme. Scheme may need to be looked at again to clarify deficit process.
Item 9 – Nursery Admissions Policy. PJ confirmed no need to consult as not a real change to policy.
The issue of are all policies on website was raised. BF will check. BF
10. AOB
JB expressed his sense of despondency on role of Forum as he feels the Forum is being paid lip service to.
Dates of Future Meetings RP raised a possible clash with January & March Forum meetings and Full Council. POST MEETING NOTE: BF confirmed March date did clash but not January. March Forum will now be on 13th March
Dates will be posted on Forum Website. BF
The meeting closed at 20:30hrs
5 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 5
Bristol Schools Forum DSG Overview_- Monitoring 2017/18 and Provisional Strategy 2018/19
Date of meeting: 27th September 2017 Time of meeting: 6.15 pm Venue: City Hall
1 Purpose of report
1.1 This report provides an update on the forecast financial position for the DSG overall as at Period 4 (to end July 2017) and provides a provisional assessment of the key strategic issues regarding the DSG for 2018/19.
2 Recommendation
2.1 Schools Forum is invited to:
a) note the in-year 2017/18 position for the overall DSG; b) note and comment on the issues emerging for the provisional financial strategy for setting the overall budgets for 2018/19 as set out in section 6; and c) agree that officers should approach the EFSA to seek a disapplication of the MFG if it is decided that the PFI Factor should be materially increased for 2018/19.
Report name: DSG Overview 1 Author: David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 5
3 Background
3.1 At Schools Forum on 11th July, it was reported that there was a forecast £6m deficit on the Dedicated Schools Budget for 2017/18.
3.2 In August 2017, the EFSA issued the operational guidance on schools funding for 2018/19. This report explains the key points that emerge from that which shape the financial strategy for 2018/19 and the decisions that will be required.
3.3 In September 2017, the EFSA published provisional allocations for 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2021/21 for the Schools Block, Central Services Block and the High Needs Block. This information was received just before this report was due to be despatched, but the impact of the updated information has been reflected here.
3.4 Although the EFSA (August) document included some welcome headlines, the Authority and Schools Forum face some dilemmas in addressing three immediate strategic financial issues affecting the DSG: • Individual schools: many individual schools and early years settings are experiencing financial difficulties and deficit budgets; • High Needs Budget: The High Needs budget is working to reduce an in-year £5m overspend in 2017/18, with the cumulative position forecast to be £7.5m by year-end; • Schools PFI: Schools Forum were alerted to a potential budget pressure on the Schools PFI contracts at the previous meeting. A separate paper on this agenda points to a need to make savings or find alternative sources of income in the region of £4.5m each year at today’s prices.
3.5 The paper then proposes a course of action for addressing this situation.
4 Budget monitoring 2017/18
4.1 At Schools Forum on 11th July, it was reported that there was a forecast £6m deficit on the Dedicated Schools Budget for 2017/18.
4.2 This position has moved subtly, but not materially since then. The Period 4 position is set out in Table 1 with more detail set out in Appendix 1.
Report name: DSG Overview 2 Author: David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 5
Table 1: Forecast position on overall DSG for 2017/18 at Period 4 (July 2017) Brought Forecast Carry forward Funding Outturn In-year forward 1.4.17 2017/18 2017/18 movement 31.3.17 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 Maintained Schools 0 (98,636) 98,636 0 0 Academy Recoupment 0 (147,034) 147,034 0 0 Early Years Block (440) (33,481) 33,915 362 (6) High Needs Block 2,365 (44,170) 49,191 5,021 7,386 Schools Block (Central) (295) (5,435) 4,353 (1,082) (1,377) Total 1,630 (328,756) 332,835 4,301 6,003
4.3 While there has been some movement at the margins, the main overspend (£7.4m) is in the High Needs budget, which is explained in a separate report on this agenda. The underspends (-£1.4m) are in the centrally retained element of the Schools Block, particularly in the pupil growth fund.
5 School Funding Arrangements 2018/19
5.1 The Education and Skills Funding Agency issued the “Schools revenue funding 2018 to 2019: Operational guide” earlier in the summer. It confirms the continued commitment to move to a national funding formula for each of the blocks of the DSG.
5.2 The key points in the document (with officer comments) are set out below: i. The central school service block has been created. This means there are now four blocks to the DSG: schools, high needs, early years and the new central school services block.
ii. Each of the four blocks of the DSG will be determined by a separate national funding formula. This is a continuation of current policy.
iii. Baselines have been adjusted to take account of local authorities’ most recent spending patterns. This has the effect of protecting local authority spending at the 2017/18 level on each block.
iv. Within the Schools Block, the Government will provide for at least a 0.5% per pupil increase for each school in 2018/19 through the national funding formula. While this is a welcome headline position, this is about the overall total available within the Schools Block, rather than a guaranteed increase for each individual school.
v. The formula will provide local authorities with per pupil funding of at least £4,800 for all secondary schools that have pupils in years 10 and 11 by 2019/20. Local authorities will be able to introduce a
Report name: DSG Overview 3 Author: David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 5
factor into the formula that acts as a transition to £4,800 per pupil for individual secondary schools. Most Bristol secondary schools are above £4,800 already, so this is unlikely to be a major issue locally.
vi. Within the high needs block, the Government will provide for at least a 0.5% overall increase in 2018/19 through the high needs national funding formula. While any additional funding is welcome, an extra 0.5% for Bristol would only amount to £0.250m. In the context of a £5m in-year budget pressure, this is unlikely to make much material difference to the underlying problem.
vii. The minimum funding guarantee (MFG) for schools will continue, but local authorities will have the flexibility to set a local MFG between 0% and minus 1.5% per pupil. This is a departure from past practice, where the MFG has been prescribed by the DfE. It gives the local authority options in moving towards the national funding formula or in managing pressures. It is for the LA to propose and decide on the level of the MFG, but it must consult the Schools Forum.
viii. The schools block will be ring-fenced from 2018-19, but local authorities will be able to transfer up to 0.5% of their schools block funding out, with the agreement of their schools forum. 0.5% would represent £1.2m, based on the 2017/18 formula allocations. Whether this option is used will depend on the financial strategy pursued for 2018/19 which is provisionally discussed later in this report.
ix. A number of smaller changes have also been introduced:
• The local formula may use both current and “Ever 6” free school meals data for deprivation;
• Pupil Premium Plus rates for 2018/19 have been increased, instead of including a looked after children factor in the NFF;
• LAs no longer need to request a disapplication to increase pupil numbers where there is an increase in a school’s admission limit or a local reorganisation;
• EFSA has clarified their explanation about adjustments to budget relating to excluded pupils (but this is not a change);
• Where there are high needs places in mainstream schools (eg Resource Bases), the schools block pupil numbers will no longer be adjusted for those high needs places. Mainstream schools with specialist provision will be funded for all their
Report name: DSG Overview 4 Author: David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 5
Reception – Year 11 pupils on roll, like any other school. For filled places, the place factor will be £6,000 and for unfilled places, the place factor will continue to be £10,000. Funding will be transferred between blocks to take account of this.
5.3 The EFSA (September) document provided welcome news that the indicated 0.5% increases in the Schools and High Needs Blocks would be higher for Bristol’s DSG.
5.4 Table 2 indicates that the neutral changes to the baselines for Bristol which amount to the shift in place funding for specialist placements in mainstream schools between the high needs and the schools blocks. The funding notified on 15th September 2017 shows extra provisional DSG for 2018/19 of £4.65m, including a (£3.54m) 2.2% increase to the High Needs Budget and a (£1.07m) 1.5% increase to the Schools Block. The provisional Central School Services Block would increase by £40k.
Table 2: Adjusted baselines for new DSG Blocks 2018/19 Change Adjustment in for HN funding Provision 2017/18 places in notified al DSG DSG mainstream 15.9.17 2018/19 DSG Revised Blocks £m £m £m £m Schools block 241.37 1.00 +3.54 245.91 Central school services block 2.75 0.00 +0.04 2.79 High needs block 50.67 -1.00 +1.07 50.74 Early Years baseline (no change 33.48 0.00 0.00 33.48 notified by EFSA yet) Total 328.27 0.00 +4.65 332.92
Report name: DSG Overview 5 Author: David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 5
5.5 The Schools Block will be affected by changes in pupil numbers and other data (given that the NFF will be used to determine the amount of funding to be allocated to each local authority). The Schools Block includes £3m for the Growth Fund and £0.4m for the Falling Rolls Fund. Given that there are underspends on these items, it may be possible to reduce the budgets to create some further headroom. There is an option to transfer up to (£1.2m) 0.5% of this budget to the High Needs Block.
5.6 The Central School Service Block will be funded in two parts. The first part (£1.165m) is for historic responsibilities and this will be funded at historic costs, for as long as those specific commitments exist. These are for Combined Services and Prudential Borrowing. It is expected that an element of the prudential borrowing costs will cease at the end of 2017/18 and it is anticipated that this will be reflected in a lower allocation for 2018/19 than the provisional budget in the final analysis.
5.7 The second part (£1.621m) is for on-going responsibilities and these will be funded on a formulaic basis from 2018/19. These cover Admissions (£0.461m), Licences (£0.247m), Servicing of Schools Forum (£23k) and the core centrally retained duties of the LA (transferred from the Education Services Grant) (£0.850m). The provisional allocation for 2018/19 includes £40k growth.
5.8 The High Needs Block provisional allocation for 2018/19 is £50.74m and this is after the shift of resource for mainstream specialist provision places of -£1m and the extra 2.2% (+£1.1m). This provides some additional funding compared to 2017/18 and, while there may be an option to transfer up to £1.2m funding from the Schools Block, the imperative will still be to reduce the level of spending within the High Needs budget.
5.9 Early Years Block has not been included in the EFSA information, but the Early Years Block allocation of £33.48m has been included for illustrative purposes. Actual funding for early years will be based on numbers of 2, 3 and 4 year olds on roll at each of the termly censuses during 2018/19. Funding is likely to be higher as the full-year effect of the move to 30 hour placements is reflected. Information about the Early Years block is expected to be available later in the year.
5.10 The DfE Timetable has been replicated in Appendix 2. A summary of the components of the DSG budget for 2018/19 and what Schools Forum’s role is in the decision-making process is set out in Appendix 3.
6 Considerations for a Provisional Financial Strategy
6.1 There are three significant financial pressures whose resolution the Authority needs to consider and Schools Forum support is needed to use available resources to address these issues. These are: the financial
Report name: DSG Overview 6 Author: David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 5
position of individual schools and early years settings; the over-commitment of the High Needs budget; and the growing Affordability Gap on the two multi-school PFI contracts.
6.2 Individual Schools. At the end of 2016/17, there were 20 individual maintained schools in deficit. The aggregate of individual schools budgets was £5.0m, a low point. Currently, there are 45 individual schools which are reporting an in-year deficit and 20 a cumulative deficit by year-end. Figures for academies are not known, but the funding streams are generally the same. The National Funding Formula, on the basis of the illustrations provided by the EFSA in September 2017 would provide Bristol’s schools 2.4% more on average than the 2017/18 baseline in around 2020/21. When the DfE explained their NFF plans in their phase 2 consultation earlier this year, they advised that schools would face 3 year cost pressures of around 8% per pupil. So, the NFF is unlikely to be a major solution for schools in deficit or running down their balances.
6.3 Early years settings, too, are experiencing difficulties, particularly those with Children’s Centres, who have been using resources flexibly to provide their early education, childcare and family support funds. The tightening of resources and more insistence on separate funding streams being used for the purposes provided have left some activities exposed or unfunded.
6.4 The High Needs budget is considered elsewhere on the agenda. The forecast cumulative overspend by the end of the year is expected to be £7.5m. An action plan has identified where spending can be reduced, but this will need the co-operation of schools and other providers to deliver the level of reductions required. Nonetheless, the additional £1.1m is not going to solve the funding problem on its own. And while it is possible to transfer up to 0.5% (£1.2m) of the Schools Block to the High Needs Block , this has to be balanced with the need to resolve issues in the Schools Block.
6.5 The PFI Affordability Gap issue is explained in detail in a report elsewhere on this agenda. The PFI Factor in the mainstream formula ought to have kept pace with the expected amount required to balance the PFI accounts in the long-term, but this has not happened. The schools block ought to have been absorbing this growing cost gradually, rather than now being faced with potentially three times as much being channeled through this factor. The PFI contracts run for another 18 years and the precise shortfall depends on future occupancy levels of PFI schools and the level of inflation. The PFI paper indicates an on-going shortfall of up to £4.5m. Contractual savings and further stakeholder contributions might reduce this to something nearer £4m. Any increase in the PFI Factor in the formula would go to PFI schools and they would repay that to the PFI account in accordance with their Governing Body Agreement.
Report name: DSG Overview 7 Author: David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 5
6.6 The significant point about the PFI pressure, however, is that this may be one of the very last opportunities the Authority has to resolve this shortfall satisfactorily. Indeed, with the introduction of the National Funding Formula, it may already be too late, but the Authority must somehow resolve this budget pressure as it will accumulate at a rate of £4m+ each year until it is resolved.
6.7 Priorities. In any given year, each of these pressures would merit a wholehearted effort to target all available resources to address them. With there being three such pressures, the imperative is to work out priorities.
6.8 If Schools are prioritised. Any headroom within the Schools Block would be allocated to the mainstream formula. With some scope to reduce the existing growth fund and falling rolls budgets (£1.4m) and to use the proposed growth of 1.5% per pupil (£3.5m), this would point to a budget settlement for schools of c£4.9m (c2%) more than 2017/18. This would preclude making a substantial increase in the PFI Factor and it would preclude transferring any Schools Block money to the High Needs Block.
6.9 Early Years settings are subject to the national Early Years Single Funding Formula. The proposal to reduce central spend from 7% to 5% of the total would mean that allocations for early years settings could increase by 2%, before taking account of any changes to the national rates for 2, 3 and 4 year olds for 2018/19.
6.10 If High Needs is prioritised. The only scope for shifting resource within the DSG to High Needs for 2018/19 is 0.5% of the Schools Block (£1.2m). This is unlikely to be sufficient on its own to resolve the High Needs budget pressures. By transferring this resource, it would limit the scope to address the PFI issue or to support individual schools.
6.11 If PFI is prioritised. It would be understandable if Schools Forum members were surprised to find the PFI issue as a pressing concern, not least because it has only recently been brought to Forum’s attention. The changes around the National Funding Formula could mean that the opportunity to act by increasing the PFI Factor to address the affordability gap may be now or never.
6.12 Allocating Schools Block money to increase the PFI Factor would mean mainstream schools foregoing funding that would otherwise go to them. It should be borne in mind, however, that these next two years are a transition to the hard NFF. So, after this transition, schools will divert to a different formula whose per pupil allocations will be the same, whether this PFI Factor adjustment is made locally or not.
Report name: DSG Overview 8 Author: David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 5
6.13 Taking the estimated funding that would be available if schools were prioritized in an earlier paragraph (ie £4.9m) there would appear to be sufficient to allocate £4m to the PFI Factor, if this were the priority.
6.14 This approach would mean that schools, early years settings and specialist settings (funded from the High Needs budget) were all addressing their pressures by identifying their own ways of containing costs, rather than working on the basis of solving their financial problems with additional funding.
6.15 The approach of prioritizing PFI is not without risks. If individual schools’ own financial difficulties are not addressed, deficits will grow, surpluses will reduce and the Authority will be more exposed, potentially having to underwrite unavoidable overspends. Likewise, if the action plan for High Needs does not deliver sufficient spending reductions, the Authority will be exposed should the DSG overspend be greater than the sum of the individual school surpluses. There will be future opportunities to pursue different strategies to resolve school and high needs budget pressures, but the concern is that for the PFI issue, there may not be any other opportunities to change the PFI Factor in this way.
6.16 There are risks in the mechanics of making such a large change in the PFI Factor (increasing it from £1.9m to £5.9m in one go). If the Minimum Funding Guarantee is not disapplied for this adjustment, the PFI schools stand to lose as the funds provided through the PFI Factor would count towards their MFG calculation. So, Schools Forum’s support in seeking a disapplication of the MFG on this issue will be very helpful in making this work, whether the full £4m is agreed as part of the strategy in the end, or a lower figure.
6.17 The Minimum Funding Guarantee considerations. The EFSA has indicated that the Authority may determine, in consultation with Schools Forum, the level that the Minimum Funding Guarantee should be set. It may be set anywhere between -1.5% and 0%. The provisional figures for 2018/19 suggest that there is likely to be some headroom in the schools settlement, unless the estimated £4.9m available were to be used to support PFI and High Needs. The decision about the MFG will depend on what the natural changes in data do to the distribution among schools. A small amount of headroom beyond the MFG would likely distort the distribution so much that the outcome will diverge from the intent.
6.18 Schools Forum’s views. Schools Forum views on how the Authority should balance the competing priorities, recognizing the different opportunities for resolving those pressures, are welcome. Any final strategy will be developed in the light of Schools Forum’s views, the final figures provided by the EFSA, any further developments and the Authority’s
Report name: DSG Overview 9 Author: David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 5
assessment of the risks and practicalities. Final decisions on this matter are ultimately for Council to determine.
7 Glossary of Terms
Report name: DSG Overview 10 Author: David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 5
Appendix 1 Forecast position for Overall DSG 2017/18 as at Period 4 Forecast Brought Carry Funding Outturn (as at In-year forward forward 2017/18 July 2017) movement 1.4.17 31.3.17 2017/18 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Admissions (461) 461 0 Centrally Retained (295) (4,974) 3,892 (1,082) (1,377) Formula (98,636) 98,636 0 Schools Block (295) (104,071) 102,989 (1,082) (1,377)
Academy 0 (147,034) 147,034 0 0 Recoupment
National Formula (25,721) 25,721 0 0 Contingency (292) 292 0 0 2 Year Old Funding (3,719) 3,719 0 0 Pupil Premium (EYPP) (279) 279 0 0 Additional Support (1,026) 1,026 0 0 Services SEN Top up (667) 667 0 0 Staffing (1,777) 1,771 (6) (6) Committed reserve (440) 0 440 440 Early Years Block (440) (33,481) 33,915 362 (6)
Commissioned (2,723) 2,947 224 224 Services Core Place Funding (11,900) 11,900 0 0 Staffing (895) 895 0 0 Top Up (20,221) 21,912 1,621 1,621 Placements (6,455) 9,518 3,063 3,063 Pupil Support (504) 428 (76) (76) Schools In Financial (300) 300 0 0 Difficulty HOPE Virtual School (435) 435 0 0 Disability Access Fund (111) 111 0 0 16/17 Overspend 3,180 (626) (626) 2,554 carried forward Committed reserve (815) 815 815 0 High Needs Block 2,365 (44,170) 49,191 5,021 7,386
Total 1,630 (328,756) 332,835 4,301 6,003
Report name: DSG Overview 11 Author: David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 5
Appendix 2
DfE / EFSA Indicative Timetable for 2018/19 Schools Budget Setting
Date DfE/ESFA Local authorities
August 2017 Operational guidance published setting out arrangements for 5-16 mainstream schools implementation for 2018 to 2019.
Local authority level baselines published
August 2017 Example APT issued to local authorities
September Allocations issued for schools, central 2017 school services and high needs blocks
Autumn 2017 High needs funding guide for 2018 to 2019 issued to local authorities 5 October 2017 School census day
October / DfE and local authorities check and validate school census November 2017
30 November School census database closed Deadline for submitting 2017 requests for: • MFG exclusions • exceptional premises factors • sparsity factors • lump sum variations for amalgamating schools • pupil number reductions • movement of funding out of the schools block above the limit of 0.5% and/or which the schools forum has not approved Mid-December APT issued to local authorities, containing 2017 October 2017 census-based pupil data and factors
Publication of DSG schools block and high needs block allocations for 2018 to 2019 (prior to academy recoupment)
Publication of provisional early years block
Report name: DSG Overview 12 Author: David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 5
Date DfE/ESFA Local authorities
allocations Mid-January Schools forum consultation / 2018 political approval required for final 2018 to 2019 funding formula 19 January Deadline for submission of final 2018 2018 to 2019 APT to ESFA
28 February Deadline for confirmation of 2018 schools budget shares to mainstream maintained schools February/March 2018 to 2019 allocations to post-16 2018 institutions, academies and NMSS to be issued February 2018 Publication of 2018 to 2019 high needs place numbers at institution level Confirmation of 2018 to 2019 general 30 March 2018 annual grant for academies open by 9 January 2018
First DSG payments to local authorities based on 2018 to 2019 allocations, net of April 2018 academies recoupment (DSG allocations updated termly for in year academy conversions), FE high needs place funding deductions and other adjustments
Summer 2018 Early years block updated for January 2018 early years pupil numbers Summer 2019 Early years block updated for January 2019 early years pupil numbers (pro rata 7/12ths as this relates only to the period September 2018- March 2019)
Report name: DSG Overview 13 Author: David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 5
Appendix 3 Decision making around DSG for 2018/19
Indicative amount Approval required Services covered (and funding block) (mostly 2017/18 unless otherwise indicated)
The baseline Schools Block for 2018/19 starts Authority proposes and Funding Formula, amounts distributed at £242.37m, including decides, but it must and arrangements for Minimum £3m for growth fund and consult the Schools Funding Guarantee £0.4m for falling rolls Forum which are considered separately. Baseline is £49.67m for Schools forum approval is High needs block provision 2018/19 not required (although Central licences negotiated by the they should be consulted) approval not required Secretary of State Funding to enable all schools to meet Part of Growth fund - £3m the infant class size requirement Back-pay for equal pay claims No provision Remission of boarding fees at No provision maintained schools and academies Places in independent schools for non- No provision SEN pupils Admissions £0.461m Schools forum approval is Servicing of schools forum £23k in 2017/18 required on a line-by-line Contribution to responsibilities that £843k (former ESG core) basis local authorities hold for all schools 2017/18 Contribution to responsibilities that local authorities hold for maintained schools (voted on by relevant None maintained school members of the forum only) De-delegated services from the Schedule of services schools block (voted on by the relevant amounting to £2.145m maintained school members of the 2017/18 forum only) 5% of the estimated 3 & 4 Central early years block provision Schools forum approval is year old funding required Any movement of funding out of the To be determined schools block
Report name: DSG Overview 14 Author: David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 5
Indicative amount Approval required Services covered (and funding block) (mostly 2017/18 unless otherwise indicated)
Any deficit from the previous funding period that reduces the amount of the To be determined schools budget Any brought forward deficit on de- delegated services which is to be met none by the overall schools budget Schools forum approval is required on a line-by-line Capital expenditure funded from basis. The budget cannot revenue – projects must have been exceed the value agreed planned and decided on prior to April none in the previous funding 2013 so no new projects can be period and no new charged. Details of the remaining costs commitments can be should be presented entered into. Contribution to combined budgets – this is where the schools forum agreed Read establishing local prior to April 2013 a contribution from authority DSG baselines £0.599m the schools budget to services which for more information would otherwise be funded from other sources Existing termination of employment costs (costs for specific individuals must have been approved prior to £0 April 2013 so no new redundancy costs can be charged) Prudential borrowing costs – the commitment must have been £0.566m, but will reduce approved prior to April 2013. Details of in 2018/19. the remaining costs should be presented Funding for significant pre-16 pupil growth, including new schools set up part of £3m growth fund Schools forum approval is to meet basic need, whether required on a line-by-line maintained or academy basis, including approval Funding for good or outstanding £0.400m will be included of the criteria for schools with falling rolls where growth within the Schools Block allocating funds to in pupil numbers is expected within for 2018/19, but unlikely schools three years to be needed for falling rolls.
Report name: DSG Overview 15 Author: David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 6
Bristol Schools Forum Report Title
Date of meeting: 27th September 2017 Time of meeting: 6.15 pm Venue: City Hall
1. Purpose of report
1.1 Schools Forum was advised at its meeting on 11th July 2017 that the affordability gap on the two schools PFI (Private Finance Initiative) contracts had grown significantly, beyond the amounts in the PFI factor in the formula. This report shares the recent analysis of the projected costs and agreed sources of funding for these long-term contracts, identifying the potential size of any affordability gap (ie shortfall in funding). It then sets out options for closing that gap.
2. Recommendations
To note that: 2.1 the annual Affordability Gap for the two PFI contracts at today’s prices is estimated to be £4.5m greater than the amount provided for in the DSG (Dedicated Schools Grant) for 2017/18 2.2 the outline options for reducing this gap set out in Section 5 are through an increase in stakeholder contributions, a reduction in contract costs or an increase in the PFI Factor in the mainstream formula. 2.3 this pressure and the outline options for addressing it should be taken into account when considering the development of the overall DSG financial strategy for 2018/19 and beyond.
3. Background
3.1 Over ten years ago, the City Council entered into long-term PFI contracts with two providers: o BAM 2004-2031. Schools: Bedminster Down, Henbury School, Orchard School and Oasis Brightstowe Academy, plus part of Filton Avenue Primary School and part of Kingweston Special School. This contract is also referred to as Phase 1A. o Skanska 2006-3034. Schools: Brislington Enterprise College, Bristol Brunel Academy, Bristol Metropolitan Academy and Bridge Learning Campus, plus BLC Primary, New Fosseway Special School, and part of Briarwood Special School. This contract is also referred to as BSF (Building Schools for the Future).
Report name: PFI Affordability 1 Author: Rob Logan & David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 6
3.2 The City Council originally pursued a PFI route in order to improve the educational facilities available to Bristol pupils, and this objective has been achieved. The construction and refurbishment has been a key element in the investment in and improvement of educational attainment in the city over the last 13 years.
3.3 The PFI contracts remain agreements between the City Council and the Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) created for each contract – Bristol Schools Ltd (BAM PPP) and Bristol PFI Ltd (Skanska).
3.4 Following the conversion of all secondary and primary settings to academies during the life of these contracts, the schools agreements (between the City Council and the school) were reviewed at the point of conversion, but may not have been reviewed since.
3.5 The City Council is responsible for contract managing the two contracts. o The City Council is currently taking action to challenge historic arrangements in a number of areas, to ensure that the city gets the best deal possible in a complex environment. This has included disputing a number of costs, notably relating to utilities or delivery of ANCs (Authority Notices of Change). o Both contracts have certain provision for financial penalties, albeit under severely constrained provision. It is important that these provisions continue to be utilized.
4. Financial Analysis
4.1 The current financial position in 2017/18 for the two schools PFI contracts is set out in Table 1. The Phase 1A contract is broadly half the size of the BSF one.
Table 1: Overview of PFI Contract income, expenditure and shortfall 2017/18 Phase 1A BSF Total Category Component £'000 £'000 £'000 Expenditure Unitary charges 9,633 17,797 27,430 Income PFI Grant -5,185 -12,087 -17,271 Income Stakeholder contributions -1,717 -2,454 -4,172 Affordability Gap PfI Factor -1,551 -388 -1,939 Affordability Gap Unfunded total -1,180 -2,869 -4,048
4.2 Unitary Charges. The Unitary Charges are the contractual payments the Authority is required to make, which cover the agreed costs of the capital investment provided by the contractor initially, the on-going operating, utilities and lifecycle (ie planned maintenance and replacement of facilities and equipment) costs at current prices and the
Report name: PFI Affordability 2 Author: Rob Logan & David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 6
effect of any agreed variations to the contract, including ones which schools and other stakeholders agreed to fund. The Authority meets these costs monthly and the annual charges are adjusted for changes to the retail prices index (RPIx) and adjusted in accordance with benchmarking exercises to obtain value for money.
4.3 PFI Grant. The Department for Education agreed to support the PFI contracts for their whole duration. The full amount of PFI Grant support is calculated for the 25 years and it is then translated into an annuity based grant (ie the amount received in the first year is identical to the rate received in the final year, there is no indexation). So, £17.3m is a fixed amount received each year, while both of these contracts are live.
4.4 Stakeholder Contributions. Originally, schools contributed 13% of a defined part of their budget, but this was changed in 2012/13 to £482 per pupil for secondary schools on BAM sites and £468 for Skanska sites (NB the quoted values are at today’s prices and are indexed each year). The financial model is different for contributions from Special Schools and Leisure Facilities, and the City Council has recently acted to ensure that these changes remain transparent and evidenced. Moreover, stakeholders pay individual one-off, operational and lifecycle costs associated with specific requests (new equipment, a change in use of a room etc). These ‘Authority Notices of Change’ are recharged by the Local Authority to the schools at cost. Payment of these charges is largely uncontroversial, provided the managed services provider completes the work to the standard required. Schools are also recharged at cost for Small Works, and for Catering Costs. For 2017/18, there is £4.2m of contribution from stakeholders.
4.5 PFI Factor. This is a factor in the PFI formula which represents the affordability gap (ie the difference between the full cost of the contract and the combined income from PFI Grant and stakeholder contributions). It is a standard feature of public sector PFI contracts that there be an affordability gap. It is meant to close the gap, but because there was funding available early in the contracts to offset the shortfalls, the imperative to increase this factor has not been there. This £1.9m is funded from the DSG Schools Block.
4.6 Unfunded Affordability Gap. Taking account of all the costs and agreed sources of funding, there is a £4m shortfall on the PFI contracts for 2017/18. This paper identifies ways in which the current costs and contributions can be managed to develop a way of balancing these accounts in the long term.
Report name: PFI Affordability 3 Author: Rob Logan & David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 6
4.7 How has this gap emerged? Table 2 sets out what the financial position was expected to be in 2017/18 and how that compares with how it actually is now.
Table 2: Comparison of the original model’s 2017/18 financial year accounts with the current position Original model Current Component £'000 £'000 Difference Unitary charges 24,524 27,430 2,906 PFI Grant -17,338 -17,271 67 Stakeholder contributions -5,146 -4,172 975 Interest -78 0 78 PfI Factor -2,090 -1,939 151 Total for 2017/18 -128 4,048 4,177
4.8 The Unitary Charges have increased by £2.9m because the indexation (ie inflation) has been higher than the 2.5% expected in the original model. Also, there have been increases in utility consumption and the inclusion of a TUPE adjustment and Authority Notices of Change (the majority of which are paid for by stakeholders). The PFI Grant is slightly less than anticipated because of a change in the annuity rate. Stakeholder contributions are lower by £1m because the original assumptions were that schools would be full, but many have had lower pupil numbers. Interest was going to be a feature of the financial model, but there can be no interest if there are no balances supporting the accounts. And the PFI Factor has not kept up with inflation which is why it is £0.2m lower.
4.9 What is the long-term position? The long-term position is dependent on changes to the retail prices index, changes in pupil numbers, further variations to the contract, any performance penalties that may arise and any other unforeseeable circumstances affecting the contract and the stakeholders. Nonetheless, it is clear that there is a significant shortfall on the contract now and it will not get any better without some intervention.
4.10 On the basis of the current known position, officers have set out some scenarios of how the long-term financial position will look. Officers have developed a range of 12 scenarios, based on indexation being 1%, 2.5%, 4% and 5.5% and pupil numbers being low, medium or high. Table 3A shows the gross forecast shortfall over 18 years for these scenarios and Table 3B shows how much would have to be found / saved in each financial year at current prices.
Report name: PFI Affordability 4 Author: Rob Logan & David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 6
Table 3A: Gross shortfall (£’000) over 18 years for both contracts Pupil number forecasts Inflation High Medium Low 1.0% £51,092 £56,947 £65,080 2.5% £69,185 £75,881 £85,229 4.0% £90,200 £97,870 £108,628 5.5% £114,632 £123,431 £135,830
Table 3B: Annual amount (£’000) to be saved / found in each financial year at current prices to avoid the shortfalls in Table 3A. Pupil number forecasts Inflation High Medium Low 1.0% £2,994 £3,337 £3,814 2.5% £3,581 £3,928 £4,412 4.0% £4,111 £4,460 £4,951 5.5% £4,586 £4,938 £5,434
4.11 Inflation. The standard inflationary assumption for PFI contracts is 2.5%. The scenarios on inflation are illustrative, based on increments of 1.5% between 1.0% and 5.5%. Long-term inflationary assumptions are not necessarily reliable. The Office of Budget Responsibility in its most recent publication on the Economic and Fiscal Outlook suggested that RPI would be between 3% and 4% up to 2021.
4.12 Pupil number forecasts. The assumptions about pupil number forecasts are important because school contributions (and possibly PFI Factor contributions too) are based on pupil numbers in the participating schools. The “High” forecast assumes that every mainstream PFI school will be full to capacity within 5 years and will stay at that level. The “Low” forecast assumes that the total number of pupils in those schools will be no different than now, on average, for the next 18 years. The “Middle” forecast is based on an assessment in School Place Planning of what school admissions may be in the medium-long term, but is essentially a middle option between the two others.
4.13 What this suggests is that, even with a consistently low inflation rate over 18 years of 1% and all schools filling to capacity and staying that way for the remainder of the contract, the Authority would still need to find £3m each year, at today’s prices to plug the affordability gap. The likelihood is that inflation will be higher than that and not all schools will be completely full all the time.
4.14 The range of outcomes is so large and the variables are so beyond the influence of any individual that there can be no guaranteed way of ensuring that a decision about how to address the problem now will
Report name: PFI Affordability 5 Author: Rob Logan & David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 6
resolve the issue for ever. Officers believe that we should be aiming to find around £4.5m at today’s prices each year (shaded in Table 3B) to take a prudent view of the medium term position. This is higher than the current shortfall for 2017/18 (£4.0m) because major change on the PFI is unlikely to take effect until 2018/19, so 18 years shortfall is being recovered over 17 years. A further review should take place periodically, no less frequently than every 3 years to ensure that the account is due to balance by contract end.
4.15 How can £4.5m be found? The analysis of the PFI contracts over the summer has established what the underlying position is and this has included clarification of who should pay for some contract variations. There remain some areas where officers may be able to make further progress in either reducing costs or finding a stakeholder to bear the cost instead. These areas include:
• Contract variations. 75% of the Authority Notices of Change are funded by stakeholders, but that still leaves £0.150m funded by BCC. The Authority could ask the stakeholder to take on the costs or it could ask the contractor to reverse the ANC (eg remove the equipment, no longer replace it etc). The Authority could go further and seek out ways of making savings on the contract, but this would be difficult to achieve without some agreement from the stakeholders whose facilities are affected.
• Utilities. Utility consumption was recalculated 5 years after the start of each contract and it was much higher than originally planned. Tariff changes, sometimes up, sometimes down, have also contributed to the change. The Authority has had to bear an increase of £0.7m per year with no linked change to the contributions from PFI schools, whose payments were based on 13% of their budget and more recently a fixed amount per pupil. The Authority could ask PFI schools to increase the contributions they make to reflect these changes and link their future contributions to agreed tariff changes. Or the Authority could seek to remove utilities from the contract, such that schools met their own costs.
• Benchmarking. While the unitary charges are indexed in accordance with the retail prices index, periodically the changes in prices for the relevant commodities are reviewed by benchmarking. Sometimes this will be a reduction, sometimes an increase. At present benchmarking is costing £0.1m (ignoring utilities). This sort of cost should be reflected in the indexation of school contributions (ie the amount per pupil
Report name: PFI Affordability 6 Author: Rob Logan & David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 6
should be adjusted to reflect the specific inflationary pressure, not simply the RPI change).
• TUPE transfers. When each of the contracts went live, there were some TUPE transfers that were seen as additional to the agreed unitary charges. Most of the individuals who transferred are still working for the contractors, which may explain why the costs have continued to be indexed. It is nonetheless a £0.250m ongoing cost which officers will continue to challenge.
• Stakeholder contributions. All of the participating secondary schools are academies, but each continues to be a party to the contract through the Governing Body Agreement (GBA). The Authority has no power to insist on any increases beyond those in the GBAs (and many of those need to be brought up-to-date with current principles and practices), but collectively PFI schools could opt to contribute more.
• PFI Factor. Individual schools in receipt of the PFI Factor in the Schools Block are obliged to repay that to the LA to meet the affordability gap. If all £4.5m were somehow allocated to this factor in the formula for 2018/19, it would take up all the available headroom the EFSA indicated would be available for schools and all Bristol schools would be funded at the level of the Minimum Funding Guarantee of -1.5% for that year. It would mean that the whole of the cost of the shortfall was being met by all mainstream schools, rather than shared with the PFI schools.
4.16 In the context of this analysis, Section 5 sets out the outline options for addressing the shortfall on the PFI contracts.
5. Outline Options
5.1 The Authority to work with all PFI school governing bodies to ensure the Governing Body Agreements reflect the current principles and practices for charging schools for their share of the PFI contract: a. An amount per pupil, based on previous October pupil census, indexed by RPIx, adjusted up or down by periodic benchmarking of facilities costs. b. PFI schools to repay the PFI Factor in the funding formula. c. PFI schools are responsible for meeting the initial and on-going costs of any contract variations they request (ie Operating costs and lifecycle costs arising from Authority Notices of Change (ANC))
Report name: PFI Affordability 7 Author: Rob Logan & David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 6
d. PFI schools to be invited collectively to consider ways in which they could assist with sharing in meeting the shortfall in funding on the PFI contracts.
5.2 The Authority ensures that the contracts provide value for money for the City, for participating schools and for all schools through effective management and monitoring arrangements, including: a. Contractor delivers as per performance schedule and any performance penalties are deducted as appropriate b. Where the Authority has agreed to meet the costs of Authority Notices of Change in the past, these are either passed over to the relevant school or the impact of a new ANC is issued to reverse the original. c. Challenging costs, supporting benchmarking exercises and ensuring stakeholders honour their financial obligations.
5.3 Adjust the PFI Factor in the mainstream formula and (at a much lower level) in the High Needs budget to provide sufficient for the expected long-term affordability gap on these contracts. This means: a. Making a stepped increase in the PFI Factor for 2018/19 (from the current level of £1.9m); b. verifying with the EFSA that this will be reflected in the National Funding Formula and increasing by inflation each year; and c. seeking a one-off disapplication of the MFG for the PFI Factor to assist with such a change.
5.4 The long-term affordability of the contracts to be re-evaluated no less frequently than every three years.
5.5 Allocate targets to deliver the shortfall. If £4.5m needs to be found each year, officers initial view is that around £0.250m may be an appropriate target for 5.1 (stakeholder contributions), £0.250m may be an appropriate target for 5.2 (contract management), leaving a balance of around £4m which might be met from increased PFI Factor, if that were available.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 If no action is taken. If the financial arrangements for these contracts are unchanged, a deficit balance would accrue on the PFI accounts, accumulating at £4m and more each year. This would adversely impact on Bristol City Council’s financial position, as it would need to hold compensating balances elsewhere on its balance sheet or would have to fund these shortfalls from non-school funds. These PFI contracts are substantially school contracts which should be funded from the DSG:
Report name: PFI Affordability 8 Author: Rob Logan & David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 6
the existence of a PFI factor in the mainstream formula and a budget line within the High Needs budget reinforce that this is where PFI affordability gaps should be funded.
6.2 School Contributions. Individual schools are required to contribute to the PFI in accordance with their Governing Body Agreements. As schools became academies, their Governing Body Agreements were updated to reflect the prevailing principles and practices. As time has passed, however, subsequent changes to the principles and practices have not been reflected in GBAs. This has not affected the contributions that individual schools have made, but it is important that GBAs reflect the agreed position.
6.3 PFI Schools are not obliged to contribute any more than their GBA says. So, any increase in contributions would have to be by agreement. Indeed, individual schools may believe they contribute sufficient currently and their budgets are already stretched as a consequence. It would nonetheless be helpful if those most benefitting from the PFI contracts were able to share in finding some of the shortfall.
6.4 It could be that schools individually or collectively chose to contribute by agreeing some service reductions (negative Authority Notices of Change) which would reduce the Unitary Charge for the Authority, without changing the amount that the school contributed.
6.5 Value for money from the contact. It is imperative that contract monitoring and management is ensuring that the services are delivered as required, applying penalties as appropriate. Also, identifying and pursuing opportunities for value engineering (ie removing unnecessary services, benchmarking, challenging the basis of charges) and working collaboratively with the contractor and stakeholders.
6.6 PFI Factor. For 2018/19, the EFSA has indicated that there will continue to be a soft version of the mainstream National Funding Formula (NFF). So, while the overall resources will be calculated, school-by-school using the NFF, the Local Authority may continue to use the local formula and apply a Minimum Funding Guarantee between 0% and - 1.5%. The EFSA indicated that there may also be headroom of 0.5% for mainstream schools in the final settlement.
6.7 The report on the DSG Overview, elsewhere on the agenda, indicates that the provisional 2018/19 Schools Block is £4.9m higher than the 2017/18 baseline. So, £4m of this might be used to increase the PFI Factor. This would treble the value of the PFI Factor and the mechanics of the Minimum Funding Guarantee would have unintended consequences if the MFG were not disapplied for those schools in receipt of a PFI Factor
Report name: PFI Affordability 9 Author: Rob Logan & David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 6
(ie PFI Factor is within the MFG calculation). This would need the agreement of the EFSA. So, subject to the MFG issue, this proposal looks to be technically feasible in 2018/19, (leaving aside the issue for the moment of whether it is desirable in the context of the current financial circumstances in the DSG). This would mean that the vast majority of the available resource (if £4.9m is the additional resource for 2018/19) would be spent on PFI, rather than being distributed to all schools.
6.8 For 2019/20, the EFSA operational guidance suggests that it would again be a soft NFF. If the stepped increase in the PFI Factor had been successfully introduced into the funding formula, there would be no need for any special arrangements to accommodate the same amount (plus inflation for 2019/20).
6.9 Beyond 2019/20, however, the DfE and EFSA do wish to introduce a hard NFF and it is not clear whether the higher PFI Factor values prevailing in 2019/20 would be accepted as the base amounts to use (plus inflation) for 2020/21, or if the EFSA would revert to the values in an earlier base year (eg 2017/18). Clearly, if the EFSA revert to the previous values, the shortfall re-emerges and the Authority will have to radically rethink how it addresses the gap. Officers intend to meet with the EFSA to discuss this situation as soon as practical.
6.10 The DSG Overview paper elsewhere on this agenda discusses whether this is the most appropriate course of action, given the other acute financial pressures faced by schools and the LA within the DSG. A sustainable solution has to be found urgently because of the introduction of the national funding formula. Ideally, however, this option would be better introduced gradually, if that were possible or practical.
7. Glossary of Terms
Affordability Gap- the difference between the costs of the PFI contract (unitary charges) and the funding agreed to pay for it (PFI grant, stakeholder contribution, DSG contribution via PFI Factor); the shortfall in funding.
ANC – Authority Notice of Change – An instruction from the City Council to the provider, following an instruction from the school, for certain additional works or services to be delivered.
CNC – Company Notice of Change – A proposal by the company to change something, at their cost.
Report name: PFI Affordability 10 Author: Rob Logan & David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 6
PFI – Private Finance Initiative – A financial model where a private company raises equity investment to fund the construction/refurbishment of an asset, in return for running the asset for a long period after construction.
UC – Unitary Charge – The monthly invoice by which the City Council pays the providers, typically with very short payment terms.
Report name: PFI Affordability 11 Author: Rob Logan & David Tully Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 7
Bristol Schools Forum High Needs Block Update
Date of meeting: 27th September 2017 Time of meeting: 6.15 pm Venue: City Hall
Report name: High Needs Block Update 1 Author: Annette Jones / Sue Rogers Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 7
1 Purpose of report
1.1 To update Schools Forum on progress in developing a High Needs deficit recovery action Plan, and the progress with the key mitigating actions.
1.2 It sets out the forecast position before new savings measures and mitigations in Appendix 1.
1.3 It identifies the sorts of initial savings measures and mitigations that would be necessary to address this situation in Appendix 2.
1.4 It then provides in Appendix 3 an analysis of the different components of the High Needs Budget, the activities funded and their costs, the underlying position for 2018/19, the cost drivers, the opportunities and constraints in making changes and then what the emerging savings measures and mitigations are. 2 Recommendations
2.1 To note the budget forecast outturn 2017/18 and impact on 18/19 forecast set out in Appendix 1.
2.2 To endorse and comment on the mitigations and savings measures set out in Appendix 2. 3 Current financial position and forecast
3.1 Table 1 sets out the latest period forecast for 2017/18 based on the actions taken to date. This includes some mitigating actions, including: reducing top-up rates by -1.75%, delayed implementation of panel decisions and building in the cost of specific PFI costs relating to High Needs.
3.2 A more summarised position is provided in Appendix 1, which sets out what the future position of the High Needs Budget will be if no more mitigations were introduced. The 2017/18 position would be an overspend of £7.7m (based on a more up-to-date,detailed forecast that that used in the DSG Overview paper elsewhere on the agenda), but, without further action and with a provisional High Needs Budget for 2018/19 £1.1m higher than the 2017/18 baseline (after accounting for £1m transfer to the Schools Block), this deficit would have accumulated to £12.9m.
3.3 Clearly, without significant additional funding, reductions in commitments and allocations from the High Needs Budget will be necessary.
Report name: High Needs Block Update 2 Author: Annette Jones / Sue Rogers Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 7
Report name: High Needs Block Update 3 Author: Annette Jones / Sue Rogers Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 7
4 High Needs Action Plan
4.1 The High Needs deficit recovery Action Plan has been developed by Local Authority officers and has been informed by the work of the Inclusion Reference Group. A project group has been established chaired by the Service Director: Education & Skills to take forward the actions of the plan and monitor impact. The project group meets fortnightly with associated task & finish activities taking place outside of the core group meetings.
4.2 The six key work areas addressed by the action plan are:
1. Core Places 2. SEN Top Ups 3. Alternative Learning Provision Top-ups 4. Other SEN Provision (e.g. out of authority placements) 5. Other Alternative Learning Provision (eg hospital tuition) 6. High Needs Services
4.3 The action plan is concerned with improving practice and considering value for money in the context of the guiding principles agreed by Schools Forum at the last meeting. Appendix 2, indicates what the savings measures and mitigations are that arise from this approach. However at this stage, these are not all quantified, but those which are amount to £4.9m. This slightly exceeds the current in-year deficit facing the High Needs Budget.
4.4 This would not address the historic deficit, nor would it recognize the growing pressures in 2018/19 that are unlikely to be matched with additional DSG funding. So, the unquantified measures would need to plug the gap caused by growth and historic deficit. Yet, even the quantified £4.9m measures would take time to develop and implement, would contain risks and are not guaranteed to be delivered.
4.5 The IRG noted that whilst actions specific to achieve savings are clear within this report they should be considered alongside the other DSG funding blocks and changes proposed within those in order to fully assess impact and achieve sustainable savings across the whole DSG.
4.6 Section 5 of this report goes through each of the six key areas, corresponding to the activities described in Appendices 3.1 to 3.6, which in turn are explaining some of the thinking behind the £4.9m savings measures and mitigations set out in Appendix 2.
4.7 Delivery on this deficit recovery plan is a priority and requires significant work across all schools and service delivery teams. Internal capacity is required to support this work and will be funded from the SEND grant.
Report name: High Needs Block Update 4 Author: Annette Jones / Sue Rogers Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 7
5 Key Areas of spend in the High Needs Budget
5.1 Core Place Funding (Appendix 3.1) 5.1.1 The SEN Capital business case is being reviewed to ensure that the highest priority is given to schemes that would have the greatest impact on reducing pressure on the High Needs block. The aim would be to fund these first schemes from Basic Need allocations and/or SEN capital allocations. This is subject to agreement through capital governance boards. 5.1.2 Other key activity includes: Reviewing proactively occupancy rates in each setting to maximise core places available 5.1.3 The IRG have asked that this work is subject to an impact assessment and should specifically consider the impact of achieving EHCP upon specialist need.
5.2 SEN Top Ups (Appendix 3.2)
5.2.1 The IRG working group on mainstream Top Up put forward a number of options: • implementation of fixed budgets • removal of support for those in Band 2 (primary) without EHCP • Aligning funding with EHCP’s
5.2.2 The view of officers is that it could be counter-productive on our inclusion strategy to cut mainstream school top up significantly further. So our recommendation is not to pursue a fixed budget or the removal of band 2 but to instead focus on ensuring that funding is only allocated where an EHCP is in place. The impact of achieving this is likely to cause some capacity pressures for different LA teams and schools. Work to consider how to achieve this is currently underway. .
Report name: High Needs Block Update 5 Author: Annette Jones / Sue Rogers Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 7
5.2.3 For Special Schools, the highest priority activity is to review the operating model for Special Schools, seeking efficiencies where able. There is agreement with special schools for an in depth workshop with schools in October. This builds on the work completed in 2016. Our benchmarking of High Needs funding revealed that funding levels in Bristol are above both statistical neighbours and core city averages (taking account of spend on out of authority placements) and this analysis shows the potential for a £2m saving. The aim is to reduce the level of funding towards the average for core cities. This new funding approach (subject to consultation) will be implemented from April 2018.
5.2.4 As an interim measure Special Schools top up rates have been reduced by 1.75% from 1st September. This has already been factored into the forecasts.
5.2.5 For Resource Bases, there is a need to review our approach and this work will follow on from the above Special School funding review. In the interim, we intend to reduce top up rates by 1.75% by 1st October as these Bases have not yet had any reduction in Top Up rates. This, too, has been factored into the forecasts.
5.2.6 For Further Education and post 16, we are challenging the funding of FE core places with neighbouring authorities and the EFSA. We anticipate savings of c£500k from this measure. 5.2.7 The mechanism and amount of funding allocated to GFE will be allocated and reviewed monthly. This work is ongoing and savings are contained above 5.2.8 The newly developed NEET service and apprenticeship service (which includes supported internships) will support the development of appropriate pathways into employment or into meaning participation. This will ensure that EHCP’s for 16-25 year olds are in place only where the young adult is participating in an appropriate education or training programme which will lead to achieving the preparing for adulthood outcomes. The aim will be to support young adults into employment when they have the skills, are ready and have secured employment. This could happen at any age between 18-25 years. .
5.3 Alternative Provision Top-Ups (Appendix 3.3) 5.3.1 For Pupil Referral Units, officers are pursuing the same measures as for Special Schools, reviewing the methodology for resourcing, abating the top-up rates by -1.75% (which is already included in the forecast).
Report name: High Needs Block Update 6 Author: Annette Jones / Sue Rogers Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 7
5.3.2 Develop a mechanism for agreeing External AP top up allocations to reduce per pupil unit cost for spot purchase and block contracts, and reduce number of pupil placements. We anticipate savings of £350,000. 5.3.3 Secondary schools already make contributions to PRU and other Alternative Provision placements where the pupil is on their roll. This contribution should be subject to review to achieve a closer alignment of expenditure and number of pupil placements. This saving is included above. 5.3.4 Officers wish to consider a similar arrangement for primary pupils. We anticipate this will offer savings, if achieved, of £450k. The IRG supported this to achieve equity with Secondary schools for Fair Access, to build upon partnership work across schools within areas and to reduce permanent exclusions in primary.
5.4 Other SEN Provision (Appendix 3.4)
5.4.1 Bristol has joined a multi-authority framework for the purchase of individual out of authority placements. This goes alongside the Capital strategy of developing local specialist provision to reduce expensive independent costs and the development of local FE pathways. A Multi authority framework will support effective and efficient commissioning of individual placements, ensure value for money and opportunities for potential pupil return.
5.4.2 Joint agency placements are made for children in care, for children with complex needs including disability and mental health. Placements are agreed to a set of criteria which consider local opportunities and costs. Placements can be for 38 weeks or 52 weeks. Work has commenced to review cases where there is joint funding to ensure education contributions are individually agreed, with cost attributed consistently. Additionally agencies are working together to arrange bespoke local packages at reduced costs. Further work continues to identify opportunities and savings.
Report name: High Needs Block Update 7 Author: Annette Jones / Sue Rogers Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 7
5.5 Other Alternative Learning Provision (Appendix 3.5) 5.5.1 Early Intervention Bases were developed through the Pushed Out learner plan for Primary excluded pupils, those needing short term intervention or outreach and to support statutory Fair Access. 3 pilots including pupil panels have been established at approximately £900k, sole funded by the HNB. There are no contributions from primary schools at this time. The EIBs provide both statutory provision and early intervention. As such the proposal seeks to achieve agreement for a charging mechanism to jointly fund the EIB’s. This would align Primary and secondary schools. We anticipate a £450,000 saving.
5.5.2 The 2 remaining maintained PRU’s, Hospital Education Service (BHES) (for students who are medically unable to attend their Mainstream school) and the Meriton ( for young parents) share a headteacher and management committee. A consultation has commenced on the future of the Meriton. The consultation seeks views to providing for young parents through the Hospital Education Service in partnership with Children Centre services. This would release capital costs and associated expenditure .We anticipate a saving of c£200k 5.5.3 A further proposal is to add the provision at BHES to the Bristol inclusion panel and therefore offer places to schools where those places meet criteria and are considered appropriate to the young people’s needs. This would include a cost for those pupils who are no longer active cases to CAMHS . The saving is included above.
5.6 High Needs Services (Appendix 3.6) 5.6.1 The funding allocated for specialist provision in financial difficulty has been reduced by £150k for this financial year and this is reflected in the forecast 5.6.2 3 special schools, Kingsweston, New Fosseway and Briarwood occupy PFI schools and as such are required to contribute to the PFI affordability gap. There are costs relating to the PFI which are attributable to the High Needs Block and these are now included. 5.6.3 The inclusion service provides Educational Psychology services to schools for early intervention and the LA Statutory assessment and advice gathering. The current specification contains both aspects described above and as such the proposal is seeking to rebalance the allocation to reflect the early intervention and Statutory roles.
Report name: High Needs Block Update 8 Author: Annette Jones / Sue Rogers Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 7
5.6.4 Activities at Hope Virtual School need to be more aligned with LAC Pupil Premium. 5.6.5 A review has commenced of the delivery model of various specialist support services, including sensory support and Bristol Autism team This will review the balance of statutory and non statutory work for each team and explore options for future funding. 5.6.6 Total savings are allocated at £650k for all activities within this section.
6 Inclusion Reference group:
6.1 This group last met on 21st September and have offered some comments on the proposals made.
6.2 In broad terms the IRG noted and considered the proposals and felt they were evidenced based and reasonable to pursue. The IRG feel it important strategically to consider the HNB savings in the context and alongside the other DSG block funding to ensure alignment and this is especially relevant to those savings proposed from special schools.
6.3 The IRG members have noted that the proposals do not address the carry forward deficit however feel that the focus on achieving in year alignment is reasonable. However they remain concerned that the mitigating proposals do not go far enough to achieve the HNB deficit recovery plan.
7 Financial Implications
7.1 The Chief Finance Officer is concerned that the High Needs Budget is overspent and is projected to have a cumulative overspend of £7.7m by the end of 2017/18, which could rise to £12.9m, if mitigating actions and savings measures are not swiftly put in place. While the action plan is identifying what could be done to offset the pressures, few of these have been put in place and many have long lead-in times. There is a risk that some of these measures will be delayed or there will be practical difficulties of bringing them to effect. This would have implications for the wider DSG position and potentially the Council’s budget.
8 Glossary of Terms
LA Local Authority SEND Special Educational Needs and Disability
Report name: High Needs Block Update 9 Author: Annette Jones / Sue Rogers Report date: 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 7
PRU Pupil Referral Unit AP Alternative Provision EIB Early Intervention Base BHES Bristol Hospital Education Service CAMHS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services
Report name: High Needs Block Update 10 Author: Annette Jones / Sue Rogers Report date: 27th September 2017
Appendix 1 Forecasts before mitigation Change Forecast Forecast (Adverse = This presentation has taken a step Component 2017/18 2018/19 +ive) back to look at the components of 1. Places only 15,959 15,370 -589 the current High Needs Forecast for 2017/18 before savings.* 2. SEN Top-ups 24,079 25,447 +1,368 3. AP Top-ups 843 837 -6 It has then considered, for each 4. Other SEN provision 6,026 6,026 0 component: 5. Other AP provision 4,885 4,885 0 Activity based costs 6. Services 3,407 3,355 -52 Total Commitment 55,199 55,920 +721 Underlying position for 2018/19
Cost drivers Brought Forward -3,180 -7,730 +4,550 Opportunities and constraints DSG Funding (gross) ** 50,649 50.740 -91 Proposals for savings. Total Funding 47,469 43,010 +4,459
Overspend (cumulative) 7,730 12,910 +5,180 Note *: Reflects -1.75% reductions in top-up rates and delayed implementation of Panel decisions. Note **: Includes provisional EFSA High Needs Block for 2018/19.
Schools Forum – 27th September 2017 High Needs Budget Paper Appendix 2 Mitigation and Savings Measures Full-year Category Proposal impact Status 1. Places only 1.1 Revise agreed places, based on occupancy, including -400 Proposal FE
2. SEN Top-ups 2.1 Negotiate lower contributions to FE Element 2s and to -500 In progress standardised FE top-ups 2.2 Review how we fund Bands 2 and 3 without EHC plans -250 Proposal 2.3 Develop revised models for special schools -2,000 Proposal 3. AP Top-ups 3.1 Develop revised models for PRUs -150 Proposal 4. Other SEN provision 4.1 Use Capital Strategy to re-provide local, less expensive tbc Proposal provision 5. Other AP provision 5.1 Share funding for Early Intervention Bases with schools -450 Proposal 5.2 Target saving for Hospital Education Service -200 Proposal 5.3 Restrict external AP provision to budget -350 Proposal 6. Services 6.1 Target saving for services -650 Proposal
Total full-year impact -4,950
These proposals are subject to final decision-making and validation of figures, but they illustrate the sorts of measures that would be needed to deliver the in-year shortfall in the High Needs Budget. The “to be confirmed” items would contribute to the past accumulated deficit. Schools Forum – 27th September 2017 High Needs Budget Paper Appendix 3.1 2017/18 Forecast Core Place Funding £15.959m Activity Based Costs Forecast Forecast No. of places No of places Cost 2017/18 Cost 2018/19 2017/18 April 17 Sep-17 Rate (£) £’000 £’000 Special Schools (Pre-16) 746 746 £10,000 £7,460 £7,460 Special Schools (Post-16) 134 134 £10,000 £1,340 £1,340 EiBs (Pre-16) 60 60 £10,000 £600 £600 Maintained Resource Bases (Pre-16) 58 29 £10,000 £411 £290 Maintained Resource Bases (Post-16) 25 25 £6,000 £150 £150 Academy Resource Bases (Pre-16) 216 194 £10,000 £2,032 £1,940 Academy Resource Bases (Post 16) 32 27 £6,000 £172 £162 FE places 271 588 £6,000 £2,894 £3,528 Pupil Referral Units 90 90 £10,000 £900 £900
Total of £10k places 1,304 1,253 £10,000 £12,743 12,530 Total of £6k places 328 640 £6,000 £3,216 3,840 Total 1,632 1,893 £15,959 £16,370
Funded by LA £9,896 £9,250 Funded via EFA £6,588 £7,120 Total £15,959 £16,370 Less 2018/19 mainstream places -1,000 transferring to Schools Block Revised total £15,959 £15,370 Schools Forum – 27th September 2017 High Needs Budget Paper Appendix 3.1 2017/18 Forecast Core Place Funding £15.959m Considerations
Cost Drivers Constraints • Number of planned places at £10k each for pre- • The rates are determined by the EFA. 16 and all Special Schools and £6k each for • Places filled by out of authority pupils must still be post 16. funded by the LA area that the school is in. • In 2018/19 the place funding for specialist • The stepped increase in Further Education places in settings in mainstream transfers to the Schools Sept 2017 is a pressure which may not be specifically Block, but the methodology is not yet clear. acknowledged in the 2018/19 NFF calculated HNB.
Opportunities Mitigation and Savings Measures
• EFA have agreed these nationally in the past, • Look to reduce excess places where practical, plus but there is now more latitude for local anything in other settings, including FE. discretion. • Most settings are full, but current occupancy suggests around 80 more places than pupils in special schools. (Consider the position in all settings) • Undertake further investigation in relation to FE funding particularly over-allocation of places.
Schools Forum – 27th September 2017 High Needs Budget Paper Appendix 3.2 2017/18 Forecast SEN Top-ups £24.079m Activity Based Costs – Summary of all SEN Top-ups
No of Total cost Summary forecast pupils Average £'000 Special 856 £17,294 £14,804 Resource Base 205 £9,122 £1,870 Mainstream 881 £3,824 £3,369 Other Local Authorities 141 £10,199 £1,438 Further Education tbc tbc £2,228 Expected new ones £370 Total forecast for 2017/18 £24,079
Expected net new ones 2018/19 £1,230 Full-year effect of current FE commitments £303 Full-year effect of MFG reduction (-1.75%) -£165 Total forecast for 2018/19 £25,447
Schools Forum – 27th September 2017 High Needs Budget Paper Appendix 3.2 2017/18 Forecast SEN Top-ups £24.079m Considerations
Cost Drivers Constraints
• Actual pupils while they are in the school at full cost of their • The Local Authority is responsible for the Element 3 additional SEN, less £6k for the Element 2 which is to be met by cost of every High Needs pupil, in accordance with the the school. For specialist settings it is the combined unit cost LA’s assessment of need (usually through the Education of the facility at a particular occupancy level, less £10k for Health and Care Plan). elements 1 & 2. • Minimum Funding Guarantee requires total amount per • DfE expect the funding to go to the setting only for as long as type of pupil to be no less than 98.5% of the rate the they are there in as near to real time as possible. previous year.
Opportunities Mitigation and Savings Measures
• There are many pupils without EHC plans who are funded • Reconfigure special schools operating models • How does site specific fit alongside the place factor? • Consider provision for pupils without EHC plans • Work is being done to reconfigure special schools staffing • FE top ups and element 2s to be challenged. structures. • The funding should always be for the Authority’s view of the • Detailed reconsideration of the top 20 most Element 3 needs of the child or YP. expensive top-ups (and top 10 in each type of provision?) to identify cost effectiveness and thematic issues to pursue
Schools Forum – 27th September 2017 High Needs Budget Paper Appendix 3.3 2017/18 Forecast AP Top-ups £0.843m Activity Based Costs -PRU PRU PRU Total PRU average costs 2017/18 pupils rates £’000 Band 1 top up 4 £2,351 £9 Band 3 top up 70 £7,238 £507 Band 4 top up 21 £11,643 £245 Pupil Referral Unit 17 £2,351 £40 Retrospective adjustments? 17 £2,474 £42 Total pupil units 129 £843
TOTAL unique PUPILS in each setting 101 receiving Top Up payments
Expected net new ones 2018/19 0 Full-year effect of MFG reduction (-1.75%) -6 Total forecast for 2018/19 £837
Schools Forum – 27th September 2017 High Needs Budget Paper Appendix 3.3 2017/18 Forecast AP Top-ups £0.843m Considerations
Cost Drivers Constraints • The cost of the place at the PRU, less the £10,000 • The Commissioner is responsible for meeting the elements 1&2 provided to the PRU. Element 3 cost. • DfE expect the funding to go to the setting only for as long as they are there in as near to real time as possible.
Opportunities Mitigation and Savings Measures
• Have we recognised the appropriate commissioner • Reconfigure PRU operating models in all cases? While the LA might be the actual • Get schools to pay for placements where pupils on commissioner and gatekeeper for appropriate their roll are accessing alternative provision. provision, there are circumstances where the school ought to pay. • PRU operating models should be reviewed in the same way as for special schools.
Schools Forum – 27th September 2017 High Needs Budget Paper Appendix 3.4 2017/18 Forecast Other SEN Provision £6.026m
Activity Based Costs – Independent and Non-Maintained Schools
Total costs Average 2017/18 Pupils rates £’000
Independent Non-maintained Schools – Pre 16 56 £58,214 £3,261 Independent Non-maintained Schools – Post 16 28 £69,928 £1,958 Independent Non-maintained Schools - Prevent - - £60 Individual Specialist Places 9 £73,444 £661 SEN Equipment - - £85 Total pupils 93 £6,026
Expected changes 2018/19 0 Total forecast for 2018/19 £6,026
Schools Forum – 27th September 2017 High Needs Budget Paper Appendix 3.4 2017/18 Forecast Other SEN Provision £6.026m Considerations
Cost Drivers Constraints • Agreed price for a place between the LA and the • The market will determine what providers are willing setting to accept as a price. • Agreed proportion of the overall costs where the • Cost of a place in the DSG is often accompanied by placement involves health and/or social care, too. a transport cost to the GF.
Opportunities Mitigation and Savings Measures
• More local provision could help if balance of • Consider potential for impact through the HN capital placement and transport was lower. plans. • Dynamic Purchasing System could help secure • Review top 10 most expensive placements and lower prices if market was healthy, but this is not review. currently proven.
Schools Forum – 27th September 2017 High Needs Budget Paper Appendix 3.5 2017/18 Forecast Other AP Provision £4.885m Activity Based Costs - Alternative Provision
Total costs Average 2017/18 Pupils rates £’000 Hospital Tuition - - £2,006 Alternative Provision – Block contracts 65 £15,369 £999 Alternative Provision – Spot contracts 127 £11,265 £1,431 Early Intervention Bases 30 £15,000 £450 Total pupils £4,885
Forecast change for 2018/19 0 Forecast 2018/19 £4,885
Schools Forum – 27th September 2017 High Needs Budget Paper Appendix 3.5 2017/18 Forecast Other AP Provision £4.885m Considerations
Cost Drivers Constraints • Hospital Tuition is largely staffing costs, but funding • Funding for hospital tuition is subject to the MFG, levels do not seem to be linked to actual numbers of but this is on an amount per place basis. pupils • Block contracts mean that costs are incurred, • Early Intervention Bases are paid a fixed sum per regardless of whether places are filled. place • Spot contracts are a price per actual pupil in provision • Block contracts are an agreed total price for a set number of places. Opportunities Mitigation and Savings Measures
• We should not be in a situation where the price for a • Review the expenditure / charging policy for the block contract place is more than the price for a spot Hospital Education Service contract pupil • Review the pilot for Early Intervention Bases and • No evidence of reassessing the needs of the hospital seek a split of costs with schools for pupils on tuition service in volume terms. their rolls. • They may be circumstances where schools should be • Consider scope to negotiate block contract rates paying for Alternative Provision when the pupil is on down and limit spend on spot contracts. their roll, including for EIBs.
Schools Forum – 27th September 2017 High Needs Budget Paper Appendix 3.6 2017/18 Forecast Services £3.407m Activity Based Costs - Services
Staffing Total costs (fte) 2017/18 £’000 TWS Commissioning – Educational Psychology £558 SEN Tribunal costs £22 Therapies for 14 children £147 Additional Learning Needs Team costs (offset by buyback) 12.9 £895 Hope Virtual School 9.2 £435 ALN Commissioning – ASDOT £328 ALN Commissioning – Sensory Support £656 ALN Commissioning – Youth Offending Team £57 Schools in Financing Difficulty £130 Contribution to High Needs elements of PFI contract costs £179 Total pupils £3,407
Commissioning budget scaled back to budget -52 Forecast position 2018/19 £3,355 Schools Forum – 27th September 2017 High Needs Budget Paper Appendix 3.6 2017/18 Forecast Services £3.407m Considerations Cost Drivers Constraints • The four commissioned service are mainly Council • There will be an element of ALN team costs that is services mostly comprising staffing costs. necessary to manage , co-ordinate and develop • ALN and Hope are staff and operating costs policy in the High Needs sector. • Therapies • There is no contribution currently to the PFI • Tribunal costs are fees contracts, but there are costs and they need to be • Schools in Financial Difficulty is transferring funding built into the future budget. to schools that might need it.
Opportunities Mitigation and Savings Measures
• Need to reassess what the balance is for Education • Review level of funding for Educational Psychology Psychology between High NB, GF and charging. Service in the High Needs Block. • Schools in Financial Difficulty will be an issue if we • Charge LAC Pupil Premium for part of Hope Virtual are modelling special schools, but may not need a School line of its own. • Review Sensory / ASDOT services • Consider use of LAC Pupil Premium • Scale back size of support services across the board • Consider size of ALN and Hope teams in the High Needs Budget, including considering • Consider size of other support services. schools paying for elements of provision. • Reduce the budget for schools in financial difficulty.
Schools Forum – 27th September 2017 High Needs Budget Paper Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 8
Bristol Schools Forum Growth Fund
Date of meeting: 27th September 2017 Time of meeting: 6.15 pm Venue: City Hall
1. Purpose of report
1.1 To inform Forum of how the Growth Fund was allocated to schools during 2016/17 and the expected position in 2017/18.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That Forum notes the report.
3. Background
3.1 Under the 2016/17 Revenue Funding Arrangements published by the EFA: ‘Schools Revenue Funding 2016-17’, Local Authorities may centrally retain funding within the schools block in order to create a growth fund for the purposes of supporting growth in pre-16 pupil numbers to meet basic need, to support additional classes needed to meet the infant class size regulation and to meet the costs of new schools.
3.2 The growth fund may not be used to support schools in financial difficulty or for general growth due to popularity.
3.3 All central budgets within the schools block must be made available to recoupment academies on the same basis as maintained schools.
3.4 Growth funding will apply where a school/academy:
• has increased its PAN, at the request of the authority, to provide an extra form of entry or greater to meet basic need in the area (caused by general population growth or housing development) as an on-going commitment
Report Name - Growth Fund 1 Report Author - Wendy Welsh Report Date – 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 8
• has agreed with the authority to provide a number of places above PAN as a bulge class as a consequence of school reorganisation or to meet short term additional needs.
3.5 Bristol’s growth fund consists of 5 elements:
1. Planned basic need growth 2. Brand new schools start up 3. Brand new schools post opening 4. Infant class size funding 5. Application for exceptional circumstance
3.6 Schools can submit an application for exceptional circumstance due to basic need growth (that requires funding over and above the funding formula and the planned basic need growth) that should be clearly stated with evidence supporting the claim for which the outcome will be decided by the Service Director for Education and Skills and the Chair of the Schools Forum after the 1st December each year.
3.7 Any unspent growth funds as at 31st March will be used to support the overall DSG fund as directed by the Service Director of Education and Skills in consultation with the Service Director of Finance.
4. Financial Implications
4.1 As reported to Forum in July, £1.880m was allocated for 2016/17 as follows: £1.633m Authority approved planned growth, £0.135m for new school start up funding / post opening grants and £0.112m for additional individual school bids. In addition £0.688m was allocated to Academies for April to August planned growth though this is funded by the formula rather than the growth fund.
4.2 Appendix 1 shows the allocation of growth fund to individual schools for 2016/17.
4.3 Appendix 2 shows the anticipated growth fund allocations for 2017/18 based on predicted pupil numbers – the final allocations will be calculated using the October 2017 census figures.
4.4 Schools Forum has discussed the possibility previously of the Growth Fund being limited to extra pupils who are residents of Bristol City Council only. At present the policy makes no distinction but there are difficulties of
Report Name - Growth Fund 2 Report Author - Wendy Welsh Report Date – 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 8
principle and practicality in amending the policy to exclude non-resident pupils from the calculation.
4.5 The issues of principle relate to the equity issue of treating non-resident pupils less generously than resident pupils and that funding for the Schools Block is provided on the basis of all the actual pupils on roll, whether they are Bristol residents or not. Schools admission policies do not generally distinguish between resident and non-resident pupils, other than where particular schools serve the region, rather than just the City. The expansions have been agreed by the Local Authority for each school on the basis of their admission policies. Changing the basis of providing support for the first two terms when new pupils are on roll risks undermining the basis of those original agreements. After the first two terms the formula would fund all pupils regardless of their home authority.
4.6 The practicalities are two-fold. Firstly, as expanding schools grow the extra pupils are not a discrete cohort, they are (for the new academic year) a net of the Year 6 leavers and the Reception joiners (for primary schools, with different yeargroups for other schools). Working out how the number of non-resident pupils has changed is not straightforward and could have unpredictable outcomes. Secondly, the National Funding Formula will have different arrangements for funding growth, so any change would be temporary.
4.7 Officers have raised the issue with the Education Funding and Skills Agency to get some advice on this matter and Schools Forum will be updated when we receive a response.
5. Glossary of Terms
EFA Education Funding Agency PAN Published Admissions Number
Report Name - Growth Fund 3 Report Author - Wendy Welsh Report Date – 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 8
Appendix 1
Allocation of 2016/17 Growth Fund Planned Bidding Pot Academy Post Opening Total Primary April-August Grant Growth 2016 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Air Balloon Hill Primary School 57 57 Ashton Gate Primary School 121 121 Avon Primary School 41 41 Barton Hill Academy 51 51 Barton Hill Primary 103 103 Begbrook Primary School 63 40 103 Bishop Road Primary School 39 39 Bridge Farm Primary School 62 62 Brunel Field Primary School 112 112 Christ Church C.E. Primary 64 35 99 Colston's Primary School 76 56 132 Compass Point South Street School 61 61 Easton CE Academy 39 90 129 Fair Furlong Primary School 2 2 Fairlawn Academy 44 44 Fairlawn Road Academy 44 44 Filton Avenue Primary School 61 42 103 Greenfield E-Act Primary Academy 28 30 58 Headley Park Primary 22 22 Henbury Court Primary Academy 0 2 2 Little Mead Academy Trust 23 23 May Park Primary 122 122 Oasis Academy Long Cross 36 102 138 Oasis Academy Marksbury Road 43 22 65 Oasis John Williams 79 79 Our Lady of the Rosary 33 33 Redfield Educate Together Academy 69 69 Redland Green School 67 67 Southville Primary School 103 103 St Anne's Junior Academy School 49 49 St Bernard's Catholic Primary 6 6 St John's Primary School 57 57 St Peter's Church of England Primary 41 41 St Werburgh's Primary School 65 65 Stoke Bishop Church of England Primary School 25 25 Two Mile Hill Primary School 21 21 Waycroft Academy 65 65 West Town Lane Academy 49 40 89 Whitehall Primary School 68 68
Total 1,635 112 688 135 2,570
Note – there were no exceptional circumstance applications submitted during 2016/17.
Overall, from the £3m budget, £1.882 was allocated during 2017/18, with the £688k for Academies being funded by the formula. Hence there was an underspend of £1.118m from the growth fund budget which was offset against the overall DSG overspend at the end of 2016/17 as agreed by Forum.
Report Name - Growth Fund 4 Report Author - Wendy Welsh Report Date – 27th September 2017 Bristol Schools Forum 27th September 2017 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 8
Appendix 2 Anticipated Allocation of 2017/18 Growth Fund Planned Bidding Pot Academy Post Exceptional Total Primary April- Opening Circumstance Growth August 2017 Grant £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Air Balloon Hill Primary School 59 59 Ashley Down Primary School 57 57 Ashton Gate Primary School 121 121 Avon Primary School 41 41 Barton Hill Primary 74 71 146 Begbrook Primary School 63 43 106 Bishop Road Primary School 38 38 Bridge Farm Primary School 64 64 Bristol Brunel Academy 50 50 Bristol Free School 82 82 Cathedral School 83 83 Chester Park Infants 35 35 Chester Park Juniors 39 39 Christ Church C.E. Primary 24 45 69 Colston's Primary School 78 51 129 Cotham School 45 45 Easton Church of England Academy 32 24 55 Fairfield High School 47 47 Fairlawn Academy 69 69 Filton Avenue Primary School 63 44 107 Greenfield E-Act Primary Academy 25 20 45 John Williams Academy 69 69 May Park Primary 32 32 Oasis Academy Long Cross 46 26 71 Oasis Academy Marksbury Road 61 61 Oasis John Williams 54 54 Our Lady of the Rosary 14 14 Redfield Educate Together Academy 56 56 Redland Green School 39 48 87 Southville Primary School 107 107 St Anne's Junior / Wicklea Academy School 42 31 72 St Bernard's Catholic Primary 9 9 St John's Primary School 60 60 St Werburgh's Primary School 59 59 Two Mile Hill Primary School 4 4 West Town Lane Academy 52 33 85 Whitehall Primary School 68 68
Total 1,661 14 533 186 - 2,393
£ Original budget 3,000,000 Additions-academy recoupment for growth 16/17 532,507 Revised budget 3,532,507
Less anticipated allocation 2,392,769
Anticipated underspend for 2017/18 (1,139,738)
Report Name - Growth Fund 5 Report Author - Wendy Welsh Report Date – 27th September 2017 Annual Report 2016-17 Contents
Introduction 1 TwS Customer Services 2 Financial Review 3 Inclusion Service 5 Education Services 9 Outdoor Education 15 Education Welfare Service 17 Admissions 20 Information and Operational 21 Support Service Customer Services 22 School ICT Services 23 School Support Services 24 INTRODUCTION Ali Mannering
Welcome to the fourth Annual Report for Trading with Schools! I am delighted to present the fourth Annual Report for Trading with Schools for the 2016-2017 financial year. In what has been a hugely important and significant year in terms of change within the service, this report outlines some of the outstanding work which has contributed to the service achieving a number of its key priorities.
In light of the significant ongoing changes within the Education sector it is inevitable that Trading with Schools will need to continue on its journey of transformation and change in order to maintain a sustainable business model for the future.
During these challenging times Trading with Schools colleagues remain committed to the delivery of: • High quality services; • Value for money; • A transparent pricing framework; • A single point of contact.
We look forward to continuing to work in partnership with Headteachers and School Business Managers to improve existing services and provide the highest quality as efficiently as possible.
I do hope that you find the information contained in this report helpful and informative. If you have any questions or comments please contact myself, Sue Finch or your Client Manager directly.
1 TwS CUSTOMER SERVICES Ali Mannering
Over the past year TwS has continued TwS also continues to benefit from the to implement a number of strategic dedicated flexible training space at change initiatives with the overall aim Parkview Campus. The venue is fully of achieving improved operational equipped with Wifi and interactive functions for internal and external smart boards and offers on-site customers. parking and sustainable travel facilities. The venue accommodates Projects have included a relocation of the vast majority of TwS CPD courses the whole service to Parkview Campus, and also provides a creative space for further reducing TwS property colleagues to work collaboratively to footprint and increasing efficiencies by develop new training events. teams working more closely together and sharing good practice and resources. The transfer of the majority of paper resources into electronic format has increased opportunities for colleagues to adopt more agile work styles and created improved access to online resources when working in schools. An increase in the use of electronic communication channels with customers has continued and in some service areas is proving to be cost effective and popular. The decision to fully convert all Trading with Schools communications to electronic format has not yet been taken but will be reviewed during 2017/18.
www.tradingwithschools.org
2 FINANCIAL REVIEW Sue Finch, Resource Manager TwS has 5 main sources of income. and secondary sectors. These are: 1. Local Authority (LA) Commissioning Commissioning income for services specifications for the delivery of statutory provided by TwS has reduced in this and discretionary services funded from financial year by circa £0.5m due to a both Dedicated Schools Grants (DSG) number of factors including continued and General Fund. reductions in the Education Service Grants. 2. DSG De-delegated funding for a number of services which are delivered on behalf of primary schools and for a limited number of services in the secondary sector and is commissioned Figure 2: 2016-2017 Income through School’s Forum.
3. Annual Orders – orders secured are mainly for School Support Services, but not exclusively.
4. Pay As You Go (PAYG) income from £3,900,179 bespoke consultancy work secured Total Traded during the financial year. Total Commissioned 5. PAYG from Continuing Professional £7,908,070 Development (CPD) opportunities.
Figure 2 illustrates the total amount of income which was secured during the financial£3,900,179 year. The traded income generated represented 67% of the Total Traded turnover, with the remaining 33% of income secured through commissioning Total Commissioned by the Local Authority and de-delegated£7,908,070 funding from the LA maintained primary
3 Table 1: Number of Schools Purchasing Annual Orders
Financial Year PROCUREMENT, CONTRACTS AND 2016-17 CATERING MANAGEMENT Cleaning Contract 39 No of Catering Contract 91 TwS Service Schools Kitchen Equipment 100 Purchased ICT Hardware 38 EDUCATION SERVICES: SCHOOL ICT SERVICES Every Child a Reader (ECaR) 42 Remote Admin 11 Governor Development Service 125 Newly Qualified Teacher Whole School Remote 26 158 Induction Whole School On Site 2hrs per week 32 Whole School On Site 2 hrs additional Academy Moderation 39 12 SCHOOL SUPPORT SERVICES: per week Emails 67 School Admissions Service 30 SIMS 125 Free School Meals (Academies) 51 SIMS on site 2 Education Welfare Service 25 SIMS Dinner Money 64 SCHOOL FINANCE SERVICE Internet 165 Finance System 109 Internet Plus 63 Standard Consultancy 54 Internet Virtual Server Hosting 2 Bronze Consultancy 20 Backup 63 Silver Consultancy 14 Telephones 139 Gold Consultancy 7 PARTNER SERVICES: Ezepay 13 Legal Services 107 SCHOOLS ABSENCE INSURANCE: School Cleaning Service 35 Teaching Staff 69 Security - Key Holding Service 126 Non Teaching Staff 68 Security - Cash in Transit 117 CC Teaching Staff 14 Eteach 140 CC Non Teaching Staff 17 MATERNITY SCHEME: Maternity Scheme 34 HR ADVICE AND SUPPORT: HR Advice Bronze 8 HR Advice Silver 70 HR Advice Gold 7 HR OPERATIONS: Annual Contract 99 Contracts 89
4 INCLUSION SERVICE
For the first half of the year, The Inclusion Service combined the Educational Psychology Service (EPS), the Behaviour Improvement Service (BIS) and Learning Improvement Service (LIS). In September 2016 voluntary redundancy was offered to a number of staff and all colleague in BIS and In addition to annual orders, a number of LIS took up the opportunity. services provide pay-as-you-go bespoke consultancy services. A total of £2.3 million The Inclusion Service is commissioned by was secured through this route. the Local Authority to contribute to the New services to TwS for 2015-16 included statutory assessment of children and young the transfer of the Telephony Service from people with additional needs. The service Corporate IT and the previously external ICT contributes to this process by completing Hardware Service to the Schools ICT Service. psychological assessments, in all cases Competitive prices have been secured for providing written psychological advice and both services. in some cases specialist reports.
Purchasing trends are showing that higher The Inclusion service has completed 273 levels of Finance Consultancy are being Education Health Care Plans (ECHPs) secured both by LA Maintained Schools and including preparation, liaising with other Academies during the financial year. professionals, meeting with parents and Other notable trends include a 33% increase young people, completing assessments in annual orders for Academy Moderation. and report writing. Specialist behaviour colleagues completed 11 statutory reports A reduced number of LA Maintained Schools between April 2016 and September of that are opting to buy back into the Absence year. Insurance Scheme, with a small increase in the Maternity Scheme. As part of the statutory duties undertaken by this service, Educational Psychologists Partner Services continue to deliver attend annual reviews for young people competitive prices secured by TwS and show where there is an imminent possibility of an overall increase of 10%. a placement breaking down. The Local Authority also commissions this work. Educational Psychologists have undertaken psychological assessments and provided written report, attended annual reviews for 48 young people, attended 14 conversion reviews for young people over 16 and 15 conversion reviews for those under 16.
5 Inclusion Service colleagues have also The service continues to publish 6 attended and facilitated SEN panels, Top newsletters for SENCOs a year that combine up Panels, EIB panels, Fair access panels local and national information updates, and Complex Needs panels. They assist in research findings and local initiatives and crucial Local Authority decision-making and have also worked with the SEN team to planning for children and young people. develop paperwork and systems for the statutory assessment process. The service The Inclusion Service completed work in has assisted in the development and relation to 10 critical incidents over the organisation of locality base Top Up panels past year. All of these require varying levels and has developed SENCO briefings held in of intensity of work and an immediate localities three times a year. response. Those involved have informed us that this is a highly regarded service. In addition to the work commissioned by This support is available to all settings as the local authority, the Inclusion Service also required. offers educational settings the opportunity to purchase bespoke work. 87 schools The Service has been involved with a large have purchased bespoke psychological number of children in care, at different work. This work has been at individual levels, ranging from telephone advice and systemic levels. 9 secondary schools to assessments and consultations within have purchased specialist psychology and schools and children’s homes and foster behaviour time to develop multiagency parents. Assessments in secure units have projects to guide educational settings in also been undertaken. providing bespoke interventions tailed to 152 data-driven Annual Consultation the needs of the individual. Meetings (ACM) have taken place across When taking into account the training children’s centres, primary, secondary and role, the number of schools taking up the specialist schools, resource bases, primary purchased services increased to over 100 and secondary academies. Through the for psychological support. There was also ACM/iReview, the service has helped each a strong take-up of training undertaken educational setting identify their most by specialist behaviour work and specialist vulnerable children and young people and learning advice and support. have provided support to the school in developing first steps to safeguard progress, The Inclusion Service offers Local Authority agree systemic developments and deliver maintained schools a number of prepaid individual support for these young people. visits from an Educational Psychologist In addition to this Schools received a core according to the level of de-delegation. visit, undertaken by learning consultants to There has also been further work purchased assist school in embedding the new code in some schools and the overall number of of practice. New SENCOs have received records of involvement this year total 767. a higher level of core visits and up to 20 delegates have attended new SENCO Training and development work is offered induction meetings. to educational settings through the TWS CPD offer. The Inclusion Service has run Prior to the redundancies of behaviour successful well-attended conferences with support colleagues, primary aged pupils highly acclaimed speakers. Approximately and a wide range of primary and secondary 300 Bristol teachers, SENCos, social care aged pupils at risk of permanent exclusion colleagues collectively attended the accessed specialist behaviour support this conferences. year.
6 In addition to the conferences, 11 experience of working to support Bristol courses have run. 300 colleagues from children, young people, families and schools. Bristol schools have attended Inclusion Service training courses. The analysis of feedback suggests that they have enjoyed, appreciated and learned from these training courses. “Our EP has been excellent this year. Supportive, helpful and In addition to the above further benefits of flexible. They have been able to using the inclusion service are: provide exactly the support the • Support to embed the school based stages school needed.” (graduated response) of the new SEND COP; • Targeted support for young people identified by schools as requiring early Bristol Maintained intervention or those at risk of exclusion in Primary order to maintain provision in mainstream settings; • The facilitation of quality first teaching and systems for working with families and young people; “You do so much for • Resolution in complex cases and positively the staff and students supported home/school relationships; • Support for young people in transition and really go the to alternative provision and from specialist provision into mainstream settings; extra mile.” • Close work with other agencies, such as social care, to aid positive resolution for Bristol Special complex cases and highly vulnerable young people; School • Increased access to the voice of the young person, promoting co-construction of intervention plans and support; • Increased understanding of the psychological and systemic processes that affect the development of children and “Thank you for your young people; report which completely • Improved systems and confidence to help captures and summarises his develop preventative and early intervention need so accurately. We are approaches to meeting the needs of all young people; very keen to work with you • A partnership approach to organise, and in the future to support the plan educational interventions to minimise identification of needs for our difficulties and enhance success; Bristol SEND students.” • Advice and support in the management of critical incidents, loss and bereavement and SENCO, Bristol the facilitation of posttraumatic growth; • Access to consultants with a depth and Secondary School breadth of skills, knowledge and expertise spanning hundreds of collective years of
7 More positive feedback for the Inclusion Service
87% of head teachers and SENCos rated educational psychology input addressing the needs of their setting very well and a further 7% as addressing the needs of their setting well.
“The additional flexibility of working “The information EP has provided with a trainee EP allowed for swift about certain students is very response to pupils who experienced a sudden escalation of difficulties. thorough, EP has researched We have looked, where possible, to subject in depth providing replicate this model with this year’s staff and families with greater planning.” knowledge as well as suggestions for strategies to use with certain Bristol Primary Academy students.” Bristol Special School
The three main conferences, which included the SENCo conference, the Wellbeing Conference and ACT training all received overwhelming positive comments, with over 90% of attendees feeding back that the key note speakers were particularly good as were specific workshops.
8 EDUCATION
School Improvement The Specialist School Improvement School Improvement continue to provide Officer for children in care continued a core offer, including three half day visits to work closely with the Head of the a year and support with headteacher Virtual School to raise the profile of the appraisal over the course of the year. This service across all phases of education. was accessed by a total of 77 schools The focused visits to both primary (63 local authority maintained and 14 and secondary schools to discuss and academies). Support was also given to review provision proved to be successful 9 schools in the appointment of new provided an increased level of knowledge headteachers. about provision. Schools also accessed a range of bespoke The Bristol outcomes for the key national support including staff meetings, Year 6 assessments were in line with INSET training, governor support and national measures in 2016. leadership support. School Improvement Officers continued to provide a range The number of primary school settings of professional development including now being judged good or better facilitating subject leader network by Ofsted is in line with the national meetings for English and Mathematics average. and a series of data briefings linked to A total of 262 NQTs successfully the new data reporting systems. The completed their first year of teaching in re-introduced and re-modelled primary Bristol. Briefings and information have headteacher briefings proved popular ensured that there is a well-informed with headteachers from over 75 schools school workforce who are up-to-date represented during the year. with current developments in education, A total of 100 schools are currently using particularly with respective to the new Bristol as the appropriate authority for assessment reporting arrangements. newly qualified teachers and a total of 262 newly qualified teachers are WRAP Workshop Raising being supported. The service provides Awareness of Prevent a number of events and training, A new area of work this year has been quality assurance of each assessment the support to schools on the Prevent and support and advice to schools Duty. This has included delivering and teachers. There is increased closer the Home Office product WRAP working with the Bristol Primary Teaching (Workshop Raising Awareness of School Alliance, who provide much of the Prevent), developing a training pack pedagogical support. and supporting material to deliver ‘WRAP train the trainer sessions’ and an education specific briefing on the Prevent
9 Duty for practitioners, support staff, The number of schools who have leaders, and Governors. published information on their websites related to the Equality Act and its WRAP was delivered in 11 schools, 88 compliance with specific duties has senior leaders were trained to deliver increased since last year. WRAP, the Prevent briefing was delivered in 20 education settings, Prevent training The support has also enabled staff to was commissioned by Early Years with deliver training in their own settings 106 Early Years practitioners attending individual staff making comments such and for Designated Safeguarding as “will revisit training records and single leads from two Multi Academy Trusts. central record and CPD plans to ensure TwS continues to work in partnership in compliance, will raise awareness more this area and information shared continues to inform material used in the explicitly re: links with safeguarding”; training and updates communicated to “deliver WRAP, embed Prevent in schools. curriculum further revisit our statutory obligations under the Equality Act”. WRAP Governors and Academy Boards Training Governors and academy board Teaching and Learning members have been supported with Teaching and Learning Consultants training on Equalities, Diversity and provided support to a total of 14 schools the Prevent Duty. The sessions have over the course of the year. This support supported Governors, assisting with was predominantly in the form of the development of their understanding of the legal responsibilities, ensuring that intensive support, but also included staff their schools and meet their duties within meetings, INSET training, support for equalities legislation and the Prevent teachers and leadership and curriculum Duty. development support.
Teaching and Learning Consultants have During 2015-2016, there were two briefings at strategic briefings for also provided a range of professional Headteachers and Governors, 2 training development, including subject specific sessions on Equalities attended by 28 training, curriculum courses focussed on governors/board members and a briefing Bristol resources and support for on Prevent attended by 27 governors. subject specific training, a well-received curriculum conference and ongoing The feedback gathered from schools support around curriculum review and through the first stage of Prevent training redesign. This also involved a bespoke was used to inform the further support; project with a group of 5 schools a briefing on the Prevent Duty, a Prevent self-assessment template, information developing the language of mathematics, for Designated Safeguarding leads which has had a positive impact on the and a pilot training session on British language children use; how to meet Values. Since April last year, 16 Bristol the needs of the most able readers schools have made referrals to the Avon and writers; and working scientifically and Somerset Counter Terrorism Unit. to develop investigative approaches in TwS has also been able to support the science. development and identify good practice in individual schools and share with others.
10 All Bristol schools benefited from local Primary, Switch-on and Inference training authority support with assessment and In these schools, over 3000 children moderation in 2016. Over 200 teachers a year benefit from ECaR and this has have attended the programme of contributed to the improvements in training linked to establishing the new standards of reading. The remarkable assessment arrangements of 2016/2017. progress of RR children was celebrated in a Reading Recovery Read Aloud event A range of cross council work has with a wide range of adults from the also been undertaken to support the community, including the Lord Mayor. statutory responsibility with regard to the Two schools and one Reading Recovery Armed Services Community Covenant child won national Reading Recovery and SACRE. Most recently, work has Awards. expanded to include the management of NQT provision for the authority and joint In addition as part of a unique working with EWS colleagues on Elective collaboration between UWE, the Local Home Educated pupils. Authority and school, 75 2nd year students were trained to take part in a Through the range of work undertaken project to read with 150 children in 20 by the team of consultants, staff at all schools. levels within schools have benefited in variety of ways including increased 61 volunteers were trained in BR@P and knowledge and understanding, an additional 25 volunteers placed in particularly of the new national schools to support reading. curriculum and new assessment arrangements; improved skill sets and The Teacher Leaders have also provided teaching and learning strategies and an input to the Best Practice Network increased confidence in their individual meetings for English subject leaders and roles. This has helped to accelerate offered TwS CPD and bespoke training progress for pupils of all abilities. to all schools across the City. The Bristol Reading Project was also launched ECAR with 12 schools submitting entries to demonstrate the creative teaching of An integral part of the teaching and reading using good quality texts. This learning consultant is the national project will continue to run next year. A recognised team of Every Child A conference on Guiding Reading is also Reader (ECaR) consultants. Three planned for the Autumn term. Reading Recovery Teacher Leaders have continued to provide ongoing An EU project ‘Open the Door to accreditation from Institute of Education, Reading’ has been submitted as a UCL for 40 Reading Recovery (RR) transnational exchange of innovative teachers in 37 schools, which are part practices regarding reading, literacy and of the Every Child a Reader project. 4 language development. teachers have also taken part in the in-service training course for new Data for ECaR schools is collected on Reading Recovery teachers. The Teacher a national data collection site. This Leaders have offered schools a range data shows that on average 82% of of evidenced-based interventions children who engaged with Reading for children struggling to read and Recovery, made 3 times the rate of write such as Reading Recovery, A to progress to bring them up to age related Z programme, Boosting Reading @ expectations.
11 Data for other interventions listed This service has been delivered in 12 showed that children make double the schools through training, coaching, rate of progress. peer mentoring, assisting with planning, curriculum development; support, Equalities advice and guidance on prejudice This area of delivery within Trading related incidents, bespoke packages to with Schools this year has continued to raise attainment and narrow the gap, develop and grow to cover Equalities, developing policy and practice relating Diversity and the Prevent Duty. to equality and whole school training (INSET) and staff meetings. This year support has been given to schools in; understanding equalities Support to schools on the Prevent legislation, achieving compliance Duty has included delivering the with the Equality Act 2010 tackling Home Office product WRAP Workshop prejudice related incidents and Raising Awareness of Prevent Train the embedding equalities in everyday trainer sessions, assisting schools with practice. The Teaching and Learning compliance in relation to the Prevent Consultant (Equalities) has supported Duty, support and advice for schools schools in: developing their policies, whilst developing their skills and building capacity, developing their skills knowledge. This has also included an and knowledge, collating evidence, education specific briefing on the Prevent considering key issues and identify duty for practitioners, support staff, priorities such as underperformance leaders and Governors. and poor progress, to improving pupil outcomes whilst improving the experience of different groups of pupils.
12 school based training also inviting WRAP train the trainer was delivered governors. to 75 senior leaders, and a successful Prevent conference took place in October WRAP train the trainer was delivered 2016; this involved contributions from to 75 senior leaders, and a successful key partner agencies and was also a great Prevent conference took place in opportunity to share the good practice of October 2016; this involved contributions Bristol’s multi agencies partnerships and from key partner agencies and was work in schools. also a great opportunity to share the good practice of Bristol’s multi agencies partnerships and work in schools. This year we have also established a virtual Prevent Network that covers all This year we have also established a Bristol schools and we have used this virtual Prevent Network that covers all effectively to share resources, updates Bristol schools and we have used this and key communications from both the effectively to share resources, updates LA and other partners. and key communications from both the LA and other partners. Governor Development Service 138 schools subscribed to the service in TwS continues to work in partnership 2016/17, including 32 academies. The in this area and information shared service continued to provide a full range continues to inform material used in the of training, support and communications training and updates communicated to that has become well established over schools. many years.
This service has also continued to The Service also continues to provide support the training of Governors and three optional services at preferential academy board members on Equalities, subscription rates: GovernorHub, The Key diversity and the Prevent Duty. and Modern Governor. 84 schools chose to purchase at least one of these services. Providing sessions to aid them in developing their understanding of 32 centrally delivered courses were the legal responsibilities in relation to offered as part of the core training Governance, ensure that their schools programme, together with 4 briefings meet their duties within equalities and workshops on areas of specific legislation and the Prevent Duty and interest or importance that arose during enable them to liaise with school senior the year. There were a total of 1027 leaders to ensure equal opportunities attendances by clerks and governors for all to succeed at the highest possible at these sessions, and over 99% of level striving to remove barriers to evaluations indicated that the delegate access and participation in learning and would recommend the session to other wider activities and working to eliminate governors or clerks. variations in outcomes for different groups. Also to ensure Governors/ Three Strategic Briefings were facilitated academy board members have been on behalf of the Service Director of trained on Prevent and can ensure Education and Skills. schools have policies and practices in place to implement the Prevent Duty.
13 The team also delivered 5 bespoke The service has continued to be services for individual schools including developed in order to keep up to governance self-reviews and supporting date with the changing education governing body investigations. landscape and ensure appropriate support is available for academies and A tailored ‘training only’ package was multi-academy trusts as well as LA purchased by a large academy chain that Maintained schools. Governing boards had not previously subscribed to GDS. were supported in ensuring they are legally compliant and aware of new A wide range of advice and support for statutory obligations as they arise such as individual schools via telephone and Prevent Duty and the requirement for all email on issues from interpretation governors to undergo a DBS check. of changes in legislation to handling complex complaints was also provided. Support and training has been provided to governing boards to achieve the A new on-line newsletter was introduced necessary standard of governance to that was well received by governors, meet Ofsted inspection criteria for Good clerks and headteachers, and included or Outstanding and provide appropriate valuable time saving resources such as challenge and strategic leadership to the Annual Year Planner and checklist for maintain the improvement in standards statutory compliant school website. in Bristol schools.
In addition to all the other work, 235 LA maintained governor appointments were processed, including the successful placement of 23 LA governors and 10 co-opted governors.
14 OUTDOOR EDUCATION
Dean Field teacher kitchen. Dean Field Study Centre (DFSC) A new campfire and BBQ area is being welcomed over 3,000 young people and enjoyed by groups in the main Centre staff from more than 50 schools and grounds, where outdoor lighting 7 youth groups over the year. Most of provides an atmospheric setting. these were for residential courses of 3 or Excellent use continues to be made of 5 days but some large day visits for up the Garden Room which has been used to 108 students at a time were also run. for a whole variety of purposes over the Year 7 ‘Induction Days’ were popular in year including conferences, meetings September and a good way to enthuse and wedding receptions. It makes an and motivate a new cohort and for staff excellent venue for a last night disco/ to get to know their tutor groups better. karaoke! Disco lighting and karaoke Several end-of-year day visits for Year 6 machine are provided along with full groups were also run successfully. size kitchen to make hot chocolate etc. INSET dates for teachers continued to Once again this year catering staff be popular and with a focus on team have been awarded 5/5 stars for food building as well as Outdoor Learning hygiene by the Food Standards Agency they ticked two boxes. The skills of the and have produced over twenty two Centre teachers inspired a variety of thousand meals. They cater for all activity ideas that can be done back at dietary needs and are consistently school providing valuable CPD as well as being given excellent feedback for the an enjoyable team bonding experience. food and service. A service is offered whereby visits are Schools consistently score the courses made to schools to run team building very highly in outcomes of personal problem solving activities for pupils and development and team work for pupils. show how this can be run by school They note increased confidence and staff for subsequent events. This can self-reliance and how their pupils’ be combined with peer mentor training perseverance and commitment for older pupils in the morning to then increases. facilitate the team challenges with younger students in the afternoon. Outdoor Learning is a very effective way of developing key skills such as 2016-17 was the centre’s busiest ever in communication and problem solving 45 years of providing Outdoor Education and also has the ability to increase courses. Bed spaces have increased to motivation and an appetite for 86 overall but still provided courses for learning. OFSTED states “When planned small schools bringing a group of 12+ and implemented well, learning outside students at a time. Accommodation has the classroom contributed significantly been enhanced with the refurbishment to raising standards and improving of the boys shower area and the visiting 15 pupils’ personal, social and emotional Exmouth development.” Exmouth Camp continues to offer a unique under-canvas experience for There was an increased interest in young people in full time education. providing revision weekends for During the summer season 2015, a total secondary schools that combine of 13 schools and 6 other organisations teacher-led revision workshops mixed (1293 students) benefited from a with outdoor activities. Experiencing residential visit at the camp. the kinaesthetic aspects of outdoor learning alongside revision appears to be The camp worked with a range of local producing a winning combination and providers, but particularly Exmouth improving exam results. Watersports (a local charity), to offer a All courses at DFSC are tailor-made to range of opportunities for schools. This meet the needs of our user groups, included a variety of watersports, archery, so whether it’s a focus on curriculum circus skills and mackerel fishing. enrichment or promoting healthy lifestyles, we can work with you to A financial investment meant the camp deliver a course that meets your planned benefited from new tents, mattresses outcomes. and a marquee as well as ongoing refurbishment and renovation.
16 EDUCATION WELFARE SERVICE
Education Welfare Service 3. Child Missing Education (CME) The Education Welfare Service is Casework responsible for: 217 Children Missing Education (CME) 1. Poor Attendance Casework cases were processed. This process aims 2. Pupil Tracking Casework to ensure that any pupil found to be 3. Child Missing Education Casework resident in Bristol but not on a school 4. New Arrivals (Refugee and Asylum roll, has access to education. Seeker) Casework 5. Elective Home Education 4. New Arrivals (Refugee and Asylum 6. Maintained School Visits to Review Seeker) Casework Whole School Attendance The EWS supported 86 newly arrived 7. Attendance Support to Academies children, ranging from Reception to Year and Free Schools 11, to access the education system. The 8. Chaperone Vetting families were mainly from Africa, Asia 9. Issuing Work Permits and other European countries such as 10. Processing Child Performance Albania. We received a large number of Licences families from Iraq and Syria, who came 11. General ‘Duty’ Phone Calls through the government Vulnerable 12. EWS Training for Schools Refugee Families Resettlement Scheme; the majority of families from Africa Statutory enforcement action in relation entered the UK through family re- to school attendance including: union. The EWS supported a number of 13. Issuing Penalty Notices unaccompanied children, who arrived 14. Irregular Attendance Prosecutions in the country due to the Calais refugee 15. School Attendance Orders and camp closure and were reunited with Breaches extended family members living in Bristol. 1. Poor Attendance Casework Education Welfare Officers (EWOs) 5. Elective Home Education worked on a total of 386 poor On 1 December 2016 the EWS took on attendance cases during the last financial responsibility for overseeing Elective year. Home Education (EHE) within the city. When notified of children becoming 2. Pupil Tracking Casework home educated, the EWS make contact 632 Pupil Tracking cases were processed. with the family to establish the plans This process aims to trace and locate for the child’s education. The EWS make pupils who have gone missing from follow up contact as necessary and if it Bristol schools. appears to the EWS that a child is not receiving suitable EHE the EWS work
17 with the family to resolve the situation. If the EWS delivered three Penalty Notice necessary, the School Attendance Order training sessions and three whole day process is followed, see paragraph 15 training sessions on the legal aspect of below. school attendance. 6. Maintained School Visits to Review Statutory enforcement action in relation Whole School Attendance to school attendance including: EWOs visited the maintained primary schools and special schools bi-termly, in 13. Issuing Penalty Notices order to review whole school attendance 2390 Penalty Notices were issued to and assist with making plans for those parents/carers of compulsory school pupils with below 90% attendance. aged children in respect of their child’s irregular attendance at school. 7. Attendance Support to Academies and Free Schools 14. Irregular Attendance Prosecutions The EWS provided attendance support 233 s444 School Attendance to 31 academies and free schools. This Prosecutions were instigated against support included bespoke training, whole parents/carers for failing to ensure school attendance reviews, individual the regular school attendance of a case work, attendance surgeries and compulsory school aged child. supervision sessions for attendance officers. 15. School Attendance Orders and Breaches 8. Chaperone Vetting One School Attendance Order was made 12 Chaperones were approved as as part of the enforcement process suitable to provide assistance to children to ensure that young people not on a and young people that work in the school roll, and not receiving suitable entertainment industry. EHE, access the education they are legally 9. Issuing Work Permits entitled to. During the last financial 120 Child Employment Work Permits year two parents were prosecuted for were processed and issued to allow breaching School Attendance Orders. statutory school aged children to work in part time employment. CME/Pupil Tracking Of the 849 CME/Pupil Tracking referrals 10. Processing Child Performance received during the financial year, 819 Licences have been closed according to our 198 Child Performance Licences were agreed outcomes, and 30 of the cases are processed and issued to allow statutory still being actively worked as at 1 June school aged children perform in the 2017. Of the 819 closed cases: 560 pupils entertainment industry. have been traced and located to ensure 11. General ‘Duty’ Phone Calls that they are on roll at a school either in EWOs provided ad-hoc advice and Bristol, the rest of the UK or abroad; 115 guidance to more than 250 parents/ pupils have been located and handed carers and professionals that contacted over to another local authority/agency the EWS by telephone during the last for follow up action; 144 pupils remain financial year. un-located and information has been shared with safeguarding agencies. 12. EWS Training for Schools Over the course of the financial year
18 Penalty Notices The EWS continued to receive high volumes of Penalty Notice requests from schools and issued over 40% more Penalty Notices than during the previous financial year. “Excellent training, The EWS has worked with the very informative” Safeguarding in Education Team and SIMS Team in order to devise Bristol City Council’s CME Guidance for Schools on adding and removing children from roll at non-standard transition points. The EWS has worked with corporate colleagues and TwS Information Support to devise new online notification forms for schools in order to meet these new “Really good notification requirements as set out in the revised Education Pupil Registration delivery. Learned regulations and DfE CME Guidance. lots today, feel motivated and renewed”
“Thanks for everything yesterday. It gave me a much needed morale boost.” Family Link Worker Bristol Primary and Nursery School
19 ADMISSIONS
The Admissions Service met the local secondary phase. authority’s statutory duty to offer every child in Bristol a school place 2,494 applications for free school meals for September 2017 in each phase of were processed for 120 schools. education. All published deadlines were For in-year admissions all children were met. offered a place at a Bristol School if The Admissions Service processed 5,603 resident in the City. on-time applications for reception Overall, the number of children offered places in 102 primary schools in 2017, a preference school in both primary compared to 5,716 in 2016. 97% of and secondary phases is similar to 2016 children offered a preference with 86% figures, despite a rise in applications in being offered their first preference. This the secondary sector. The number of is a broadly similar to 2016. 192 children appeals lodged have increased, however, were not offered a preference school this no Bristol children have been refused a year compared 253 in 2016. place at their in-area secondary school if In the secondary sector, 4,567 selected as a preference. applications were processed, compared to 4,117 in 2016. This represented a rise of 450 applications from 2016. 91% of young people were offered a place at one of their preferred schools, with 74.5% of young people offered a place at their first preference school. Figures are comparable to those of 2016. 400 “Thank you for helping to children were not offered a preferred make a stressful relocation school, compared to 307 in 2016. The less so. I really appreciate majority of young people not offered a preference school applied for schools how extremely helpful which allocate places by random you’ve been throughout the allocation, are outside Bristol, or are faith process.” schools. Parent All children were offered their in-area school if applied for as a preference. 366 appeals have been lodged for 2017, compared to 343 in 2016. In-year, 3,300 admissions were processed for the primary phase and 677 for the
20 INFORMATION AND OPERATIONAL SUPPORT
These support teams provide a On a daily basis, the team responded to broad range of financial and business an average of 30 telephone calls and 60 administration support for TwS emails. professionals and customers. The teams provide administration The team provides administrative of training courses and conferences, support and handles confidential calls including the design and production of for the Inclusion and Education Welfare professional flyers and brochures, along Services, ensuring timely and accurate with financial tasks to secure the timely processing of statutory documents such procurement of goods and services. as Educational Health Care Assessments, TwS relies on high quality operational (ECHA), Annual Reviews and Records of support functions to support all business Involvement. This includes administration priorities. for Pupil Tracking, Children Missing in Education, and poor attendance referrals. Information Support is responsible for the invoicing of educational The team processed the following: establishments, including locally • 218 Educational Health Care maintained schools, academies and free Assessments for pupils within schools for all services provided by TwS. Educational settings. • April 2016 - March 2017: 183 schools • 632 Pupil Tracking referrals and settings were invoiced £5.6m as part • 217 records for Children Missing of the annual order process. Education. • April 2016 - March 2017: 280 schools • 86 records for new arrival refugee and external settings were invoiced asylum seekers. approximately £750k for Training, CPD The team also provides flexible and and bespoke package requests. responsive support to TwS Governor Operational Support and Information Development Service and Admissions. Support administered over 255 courses in 2016 - 2017, providing front-of house, design and technical support for several well attended courses and conferences. The Operational Support team manages a dedicated e-mail inbox ([email protected]) responding to a variety of enquiries and service requests as a first point of contact for training course bookings and invoice enquiries.
21 CUSTOMER SERVICES
The Client Manager role continues Client Managers also take the lead to be very popular with schools and in working with our internal and settings. Each has a named Client external partners such as Legal, Manager who is a single point of Security and Eteach Services. contact for all TwS and partner service enquiries.
The Client Managers act as advocates for the customer, ensuring that the best possible customer outcomes are always considered as a priority.
Client Managers are also responsible for providing Service Leads with details of customer feedback and new business opportunities throughout the year, monitoring all outcomes to ensure customer satisfaction.
22 SCHOOL ICT SERVICES
Internet • Introduced a major upgrade to schools’ 166 subscribing schools/sites: anti-virus and anti-malware products 99% internet availability for schools. which supported schools from the 534 users actively using remote access global WannaCry malware attack. • Major improvements made to our Backups support of Apple equipment in schools, 166 subscribing schools/sites: ultimately saving schools time and 99% internet availability for schools. money. 534 users actively using remote access Telephony SIMS The Virgin Media telephony contract 127 subscribing schools: is managed on behalf of 141 schools, 49 SIMS courses delivered, attended by 149 providing over 1500 telephone lines. delegates. 46 Bespoke training sessions or projects Purchasing delivered. 166 laptops for staff and students (20% 5101 SIMS support tickets closed. increase) 145 PCs for staff and students • The SIMS development plan has been 33 Interactive Screens/Whiteboards (22% implemented and greater links with the increase) SIMS team and other departments within 299 iPads (11% increase) the LA have been achieved • Increase in consultancies and bespoke Hardware assessment creation has been carried out Average turnaround time for repairs was throughout the year. 1.3 days. • Developed an EYFS data dashboard which will be offered to all infant and primary schools. “We are all delighted with the service - well Admin and Curriculum Support done to all!” 71 subscribing schools- 5946 tickets closed. Bristol Nursery and 99% internet availability for schools. Family Centre 534 users actively using remote access • Developed a comprehensive programme to help interested schools to “go Google” in partnership with a commercial provider.
23 SCHOOL SUPPORT SERVICES
Procurement and Contract a new on line budgeting software system Management for schools and is being accessed and The Procurement and Contract used by 50+ schools. Management Service has undertaken The Procurement and Contracts a broad range of procurement/tender Management provide advice, support exercises either on behalf of a collection of schools or on an individual school and management for: basis. • 78 settings currently participating in the city-wide School Meals Contracts and Procurements are completed, in receive contract management services accordance with national and European from Trading with Schools. procurement, legal and pensions’ • 40 settings currently commission TwS regulations. to provide contract management for school cleaning. TWS has successfully completed the new school cleaning contract for 36 schools, On behalf of schools, TwS has led the this Framework contract permit’s schools consultation on schools catering options to enter and exit the contract within with 92 schools, leading to each setting agreed timelines. making a decision on how to commission school meals during 2017. The new Budget Working Papers contract was awarded in January 2017 providing
24 The Educational Supplies Framework The service, once initialled established, Contract with Findel Education is provides schools with bespoke offers to available for all schools and educational maintain the service in key areas where settings in Bristol. 40% of the Bristol support is required. schools have seen savings using the benefits secured through the Education TwS offers Kitchen Design services, to Framework contract and has been support educational settings to design extended until March 2018. kitchen facilities and to procure kitchen equipment. TwS also manages the city-wide Food Supply Contract, which provides food The Service acting as a broker for a supply to a wide variety of educational, number of schools contracts are able leisure and care settings in Bristol. to negotiate favourable pricing, which This includes the school milk contract enables our customers to secure value delivering school milk to the majority of for money on larger contracts which infants and primary schools in Bristol. wouldn’t otherwise be achievable when purchasing on an individual basis. 88 schools participate in the TwS Kitchen Equipment Replacement Scheme, which TwS has supported schools’ catering provides a guaranteed replacement of a providers and schools to increase the broken piece of heavy kitchen equipment delivery of school meals in both primary for a fixed annual fee, thereby allowing and secondary schools. schools to spread the costs and liabilities • Primary: 69.9% (up by 12.8%) of heavy equipment over several years. • Secondary: 38.3% (up 1.5%)
TwS offers Catering Management Support to schools that have decided to operate their own catering in house.
“Really enjoyed being part of the Stakeholder Group”
Bursar, Bristol Primary “Extremely happy School with new cleaning contractor” Bursar, Bristol Special School
25 Schools Finance The Schools finance team provides financial support, the provision of a schools based “The Finance System finance system ‘E1’ and management of a centralised bank account on schools behalf. is excellent and really helpful. Our Finance Finance consultancy was accessed by 86 schools and the E1 system is supplied to 92 Officer is great.” schools, including 2 academies.
The number of schools purchasing the gold consultancy package remained static at 5, however the number of schools purchasing “The dedicated Finance the silver package increased from 6 Team is really helpful. in 2015/16 to 12 in 2016/17. Schools indicated they needed more specialist There’s always someone at support to help manage increasingly the end of the phone and complex school budgets. they keep us up to date with There are three members of the team who everything.” have completed the CIPFA academies certificate who can support Academies, something we are looking to grow in 17/18. During 16/17 the finance team also HR Operations tendered and successfully procured new HR Operations is a fully comprehensive budget planning software, provided by transactional service, providing a fully Orovia, to allow schools to prepare, monitor compliant support and payroll function and plan their future budgets. to Educational settings. The service meets the statutory requirements There are a total of 428 users on the including all returns and pensions centrally managed E1 finance system, 28 administration. of those being set up on 2016/17. An additional 528 suppliers were set up during During 2016/2017 the service supported this period and a total number of 23,997 eighty settings across Bristol, including transactions were processed through Secondary, Primary, Nursery and the system, an increase of 3323 from Childrens Centres, LA Maintained and 15/16. The value of these transactions Academies. totalled £182,677,532.06 in payments and £173,677,465.17 in receipts. The service processed the following transactions on behalf of their customers to ensure all staff were paid correctly and “The new Budget Working on time and all statutory requirements were fulfilled. Papers is brilliant and easy to use.” • 58,095 payments made to staff in schools. Bursar, Bristol Primary • 186 Maternity/Paternity/Adoption School Requests.
26 • 1,400 Leavers removed from the HR/ the correct Bristol City Council contract, payroll system. incorporating any changes disseminated • 6507 Starter, changes and transfers by Corporate HR, all pay increases are actioned on the HR/payroll system. applied at the correct point and paid in a • 1,085 contracts produced and issued. timely manner. We have a close working • 1,126 variation to contract letters relationship with corporate colleagues to produced and issued. ensure we adhere to Council policy and • 1,367 pension related queries answered procedure at all times. and relevant information submitted to TPS and LGPS. The team have also continued to provide • 6,860 annual pension entries returned, the above level of service to customers checked and submitted to TPS. whilst assisting with the implementation • 12,046 calls answered by the dedicated of the Apprenticeship Levy scheme and TwS HR Operations call centre. planning for Teachers Pensions Monthly Data Collection (MDC). The income generated from this service for 2016/17 was £475,403. Knowle West Nursery and The benefit of providing this service allows Childrens Centre – praised a the Council to adequately carry out their member of staff for always statutory function in terms of pension being very helpful and submissions, using our direct link to the knowledgeable. pension service.
It also allows the council to retain the “Really appreciate your work required information on their own staff on this. The work of the as the employer, ensuring staff are paid TwS frontline staff often goes correctly, pension information is sent in a unrecognised.” timely manner and DBS checks are carried out. The benefit for the customer is a fully “A big thank you inclusive service, which doesn’t require the to everyone for helping us out need for the double entry of information throughout 2016. As always it is to both the outsourced provider and the greatly appreciated.” Council as the employer.
We also ensure schools are issued with
27 HR Advice and Support Supported 98% of schools which bought Of these cases, 7 went to major appeals our service and three schools which do not which were supported by the HRA. buy our service also bought consultancy. The data shows that there has been a 5% We opened 360 cases which included: reduction in the percentage of Managing • 69 disciplinaries; Attendance cases which would indicate that • 47 Managing change; schools are now more confident in their • 62 Managing Attendance; ability to manage staff absence/attendance. • 9 Performance cases; On average a case was open for 3 months. • 6 TUPEs; • 10 Probation cases; • 19 Multiple where one person is part of a number of procedures; • 138 other e.g. Appeals, Employment Tribunals, Recruitment, Freedom of Information Requests.
28 TwS STAFF
Approximately 130 members of staff The TwS SLT meet on a monthly basis and work in TwS, utilising their professional keep all staff informed of developments skills and expertise for the benefit of through the TwS InfoHub. schools and educational settings. Staff are organised in 4 main service areas. An organisational staffing structure for These are: 2016-2017 is shown in Figure 1: TwS 1. Inclusion Services Organisational Chart. 2. Education Services 3. School Support Services 4. Operational Support Services
During the first half of the financial year 16-17, the service was led by Service Manager Jackie Turner. When Jackie left to pursue new challenges, Deputy Manager Ali Mannering took over the service, supported by Becky Wilkins and Billy Forsythe acting as Deputy Managers/ Client Managers on a job share basis.
Sue Finch is the Resource Manager for TwS and her key role is to support the organisation to achieve the surplus income targets through improved economy, efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery. To ensure that the surplus remains achievable, comprehensive and robust regular monitoring is undertaken on a monthly basis throughout the year.
29 30